3 total
Appeal dismissed; LAT properly restricted chiropractor from providing psychological diagnoses for catastrophic impairment assessment.
The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.
On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.
The appeal was dismissed.
Applicant removed from Minor Injury Guideline for psychological impairments; most treatment plans and non-earner benefit denied.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to significant accident-related psychological impairments, relying on the evidence of her treating psychiatrist.
The Tribunal approved one treatment plan for physiotherapy services but denied the remaining plans for physical treatment, devices, and various assessments, finding them not reasonable and necessary.
The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
The claim for a special award was also dismissed.
Costs fixed on partial indemnity basis after successful zoning dispute application.
Following a prior decision allowing the applicant’s application in full and dismissing the municipality’s counter-application, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The applicant sought over $55,000 on a full indemnity basis.
Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles governing partial indemnity costs, the court considered the complexity of the issues, extensive affidavit evidence and cross‑examinations, the economic significance of the dispute, and adjustments required for overlapping work, calculation errors, and expert-related disbursements.
The court declined to award full indemnity costs and reduced certain fees and disbursements.
Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $38,799.91 payable within 30 days.