Dr. Melissa Paniccia

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

The respondent denied portions of a treatment plan for catastrophic impairment assessments and suspended income replacement benefits due to the applicant's non-attendance at an assessment.

The Tribunal found the mental/behavioural assessment was reasonable and necessary, awarding its cost and associated HST, but denied the cost of a comprehensive file review as a duplication of services.

The Tribunal also found the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for missing the assessment due to illness, making the suspended income replacement benefits overdue and subject to interest.

An award of $370 was granted against the respondent for unreasonably withholding the benefits despite the explanation.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming various statutory accident benefits.

The respondent argued her psychological condition was pre-existing and not accident-related.

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a Class 4 Marked impairment in social functioning and adaptation, satisfying the catastrophic impairment definition.

The Tribunal awarded partial attendant care benefits, costs for an attendant care assessment and a cognitive screen, and interest, while dismissing claims for case management, occupational therapy, a document review fee, and a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2016, sustaining a severe right elbow fracture.

He received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for the first 104 weeks, after which the respondent denied further IRBs.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment due to physical pain, fear of reinjury, and psychological impairments including depression and anxiety.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's physical injuries had healed and his psychological issues were primarily related to boredom and lack of motivation rather than a complete inability to work.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which demonstrated the applicant retained the functional capacity and vocational aptitude for alternative employment.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Judge's order requiring her to attend three independent medical examinations, re-attend discovery, and restricting her counsel from communicating with defence experts.

The defendants cross-appealed the denial of a pleading amendment alleging the plaintiff was a 'sophisticated litigant' who might exaggerate her claims.

The Superior Court upheld the denial of the pleading amendment, the discovery re-attendance, and the neuropsychological examination.

However, the court set aside the orders for orthopedic and vocational assessments due to insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction for the Associate Judge to order an assessment by a non-health practitioner.

The restriction on counsel communicating with defence experts was upheld but varied to expire once the expert report is completed.