Dr. P. Ranalli

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural impairments.

At the outset of the hearing, the adjudicator denied the applicant's request for an adjournment, noting the significant delay, previous adjournments, and the new counsel's lack of preparation.

The hearing proceeded with the applicant self-represented after her counsel failed to appear.

The adjudicator found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as she failed to prove a marked impairment in three of the four spheres of functioning under Criterion 8.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for post-104-week income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence of a complete inability to work and no evidence of incurred attendant care expenses.

As the applicant's non-catastrophic limits were exhausted, the claims for medical benefits and expenses were also dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied portions of treatment plans for chiropractic and physiotherapy, as well as a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a proper denial with medical and other reasons for the first treatment plan, triggering the consequences of s. 38(11) of the Schedule.

For the remaining treatment plan and assessment, the Tribunal preferred the applicant's medical evidence, finding the respondent's independent medical examination contained internal contradictions.

The Tribunal concluded the treatment and assessment were reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay the disputed amounts plus interest.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including physical therapy, online classes, optometric vision therapy, reading glasses, and moving expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary or causally linked to the accident.

Specifically, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence regarding the vision therapy and found the moving expenses were not payable under the Schedule as the decision to move predated the accident.