Lisa Slapinski

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic, massage therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, and assistive devices.

The Tribunal found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing right hip osteoarthritis, necessitating a hip replacement.

The Tribunal approved a May 2022 treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, as well as a long-handled tub scrubber, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The remaining treatment plans were denied due to a lack of compelling evidence demonstrating their necessity or because the expenses were incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for occupational therapy, assistive devices, physiotherapy, and a driving rehabilitation assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant partially entitled to the occupational therapy services and assistive devices, noting that the reasonableness of the benefits must be assessed at the time they were proposed.

However, the Tribunal denied the physiotherapy services as duplicative and exceeding guideline rates, and denied the driving rehabilitation assessment due to a lack of compelling evidence of ongoing psychological impairment.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for a non-earner benefit and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator committed breaches of procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case, failed to properly pinpoint evidence in his submissions as required by the case conference order, and did not establish any procedural unfairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services, occupational therapy, and assistive devices.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examinations and surveillance evidence, which demonstrated that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and was functioning independently in her activities of daily living, over the applicant's evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including occupational therapy, home maintenance expenses, and equipment for a web design course.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the occupational therapy plan, including a treadmill and exercise app, as reasonable and necessary for her mental health recovery.

The Tribunal also approved the computer, printer, and textbook required to complete a previously approved web design course.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for home maintenance and renovation expenses, finding they were regular property maintenance and not incurred as a result of the accident.

The applicant sought entitlement to several treatment plans for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award and interest.

The respondent denied the plans based on Insurer's Examinations (IEs) which concluded the injuries were either minor, resolved, or attributable to a prior accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, often relying on brief clinical notes that did not address causation or adequately contradict the detailed IE reports.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits (ACB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her daughter provided 24/7 care.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the expenses were not 'incurred' under section 3(7)(e) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was legally obligated to pay for the services, she failed to prove she actually received the services as claimed, noting vague invoicing and contradictory surveillance evidence.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that her daughter sustained an economic loss to provide the care, as the daughter had not been actively working for years prior to the accident.

The application for ACB and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, lost educational expenses, and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments over the applicant's self-reported evidence.

Claims for lost educational expenses were denied as academic transcripts showed the applicant continued his studies and improved his grades post-accident.

The disputed treatment plans were found not to be reasonable and necessary, and the requested hourly rate for a social worker exceeded the applicable Guideline maximum.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal held that section 42(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule barred the applicant from claiming attendant care expenses incurred before she submitted a Form 1, as she failed to establish exceptional circumstances that made compliance impossible or impracticable.

For the period after the Form 1 was submitted, the Tribunal found the applicant proved she incurred 33 hours of attendant care expenses provided by a friend acting as a professional service provider.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $462.00 for these incurred expenses, plus interest, but declined to deem any other expenses incurred.