Dr. Milenkovic

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various accident benefits, an award, and interest.

The Tribunal evaluated the medical evidence under Criterion 7 and Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding the applicant did not have Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and that her physical and psychological impairments did not meet the catastrophic impairment thresholds.

As the applicant's non-catastrophic medical rehabilitation limits were exhausted, the claims for attendant care and treatment plans were dismissed.

The claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

Both the applicant and the respondent requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law by not including language about post-accident income deductions in the income replacement benefit order.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by admitting a medical report without the author being available for cross-examination, refusing to issue summonses, and failing to provide adequate reasons regarding catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law, fact, or breaches of procedural fairness that would have changed the outcome.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

Personal injury trial arising from a 2015 motor vehicle accident involving a plaintiff with a prior 2012 collision and earlier mental health history.

The court rejected the defence theory that the plaintiff was malingering or merely misattributing pre-existing impairments, and found that the 2015 accident caused soft tissue injuries, chronic pain, psychological injury, headaches, and cognitive deficits that permanently impaired work and daily functioning.

Applying the but-for causation test and the thin skull rule rather than the crumbling skull principle, the court held that the plaintiff had substantially recovered from the earlier accident but remained vulnerable to more serious consequences from the later collision.

The court awarded general damages, past and future income loss, future care costs, and derivative damages to the family claimant.