Mr. Habash

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired under criterion 8 of the AMA Guides.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by considering pre- and post-accident levels of function and erred in law by imposing a higher burden of proof for marked impairments in three domains.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal held that it properly applied the AMA Guides, appropriately weighed the medical evidence, and correctly placed less weight on an occupational therapy report that lacked an in-home assessment.

The applicant sought a determination that they sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal applied the AMA Guides 4th Edition to assess the applicant's functioning in four spheres.

Relying on surveillance evidence, social media posts, and the respondent's medical experts, the Tribunal found the applicant's self-reported limitations were inconsistent with their actual activities, which included home renovations, driving, and running a business.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in any of the four spheres and dismissed the application.