Nicole Azizli

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had terminated the IRB based on multidisciplinary assessments concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a restaurant server.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide supporting medical documentation to meet her onus for both the IRB and the treatment plan, relying instead on perceived deficiencies in the respondent's evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's injuries were transient soft tissue injuries and that her psychological issues did not prevent her from working.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for interest and an award.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether the applicant, a personal support worker who had recently registered a business at the behest of a staffing agency, was 'employed' or 'self-employed' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment for a closed period.

However, applying the Schedule's definitions, the Tribunal determined she was solely self-employed at the time of the accident.

Because her business reported no income in the prior fiscal year, and she could not rely on her previous employment income, the quantum of her IRBs was calculated as nil.

The application was dismissed.