Dr. M. Angel

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRBs), and various medical benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as his physical and psychological impairments did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under criteria 6 and 7, nor did he suffer marked impairments in three domains under criterion 8.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, noting the applicant had returned to work for nearly three years post-accident and failed to demonstrate a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for a functional abilities evaluation and worksite assessment were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded minor amounts for treatment plan form fees and interest on those amounts, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed a severe neurocognitive disorder, rendering her incapable of caring for herself.

She sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's dementia pre-dated the accident and was not caused by it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the accident materially contributed to the onset and rapid acceleration of the applicant's neurocognitive disorder.

The Tribunal held that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairment) and awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month, and specific medical treatment plans, along with interest.

Claims for an award under section 10 and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought an award under section 10 of Regulation 664, arguing the respondent unreasonably withheld benefits by subjecting her to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) despite her sustaining a concussion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's initial medical records did not clearly diagnose a concussion and that the respondent acted reasonably in requesting an insurer's examination.

Once the neurologist recommended removing the applicant from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, the respondent complied.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits and dismissed the application for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the applicant, noting inconsistencies between his self-reporting, tax returns, and surveillance evidence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors, who found no objective evidence of radiculopathy, psychological impairment, chronic pain, or concussion.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, which had been exhausted.

All claims for benefits, interest, and an award were dismissed.