Ms. Kelly Wendt

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit (NEB), medical benefits, and travel expenses.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that his pre-existing conditions were the primary cause of his impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the NEB, relying on medical evidence that his physical and psychological impairments continuously prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also approved the physiotherapy treatment plan and partial travel expenses, but denied the psychotherapy treatment plan, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB), interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her injuries continuously prevented her from engaging in pre-accident childcare and housekeeping activities.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's section 44 assessors.

The applicant was awarded the NEB and interest, but the claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant alleged the adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by limiting oral submissions and excluding an Aide Memoire, and made errors of law and fact in assessing her activities of daily living, communication abilities, and expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the parties were granted ample time for submissions.

The Tribunal also held that the alleged factual errors would not have changed the outcome and that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment due to marked impairments in activities of daily living, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal approved three treatment plans for Botox injections, an attendant care assessment, and psychotherapy/social worker counselling, but denied thirteen other plans.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, but interest was awarded on overdue benefits.