Natalya Khramtsova

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial letter complied with the requirement to provide medical reasons under section 37(6) of the Schedule.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert reports due to inaccuracies and a failure to account for the applicant's significant pre-existing health conditions and prior accidents.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's section 44 assessors' opinions that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and did not require attendant care.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, assistive devices, chiropractic services, and multiple assessments.

The Tribunal denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding that the applicant's significant functional limitations were attributable to an intervening stroke rather than the accident.

The Tribunal partially approved the claim for assistive devices and fully approved the claims for chiropractic services, finding them reasonable and necessary for the applicant's accident-related neck and back injuries.

The claims for neurological, orthopaedic, attendant care, and SIE/FAE assessments were denied for lack of supporting medical evidence.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments for incurred assistive devices and chiropractic services.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as the evidence showed he was largely independent with self-care and his pre-accident functional status was already limited by prior injuries.

The Tribunal denied the claims for a non-earner benefit, attendant care, physiotherapy, and a functional abilities evaluation, preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors.

However, the Tribunal awarded $555.28 for specific assistive devices (long-handled cleaning tools, handheld showerhead, heating pad) and the cost of the treatment plan, along with interest on overdue payments.

The request for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and assessment costs following a motorcycle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under either criterion 7 or 8, preferring the evidence of the respondent's experts over the applicant's expert, whose conclusions relied heavily on inconsistent self-reporting.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for attendant care benefits and assessment costs due to a lack of evidence demonstrating incurred expenses or reasonable necessity.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), transportation costs, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a substantial or complete inability to work to qualify for IRBs, noting she had returned to work and later received CERB due to pandemic-related job loss.

Claims for ACBs, transportation costs, and the chronic pain assessment were also dismissed for lack of supporting evidence and failure to meet the respective legal thresholds.

Consequently, claims for interest and a Regulation 664 award were denied.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits and a catastrophic impairment (CAT) designation following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident contributed to the applicant's psychological impairment, the applicant's self-reports were not credible due to significant inconsistencies regarding his pre-accident health and functional status.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning and therefore did not meet the CAT threshold.

All claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable, necessary, or incurred.