Dr. Quaid

The applicant was injured in a severe motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits (ACB) and medical expenses, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to ACB at the non-catastrophic maximum of $3,000 per month for a closed period, deeming the expenses incurred because the insurer unreasonably withheld payment during that time.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for optometric services to investigate ongoing vision impairments and awarded partial reimbursement for prescription medications, an ambulance bill, and replacement glasses submitted on various OCF-6 forms.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 were dismissed, but interest was awarded on all overdue benefits.

The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while there was no breach of procedural fairness, the Adjudicator's findings regarding the appellant's whole person impairment under Criterion 6 of the AMA Guides were unreasonable.

Specifically, the Adjudicator unreasonably dismissed evidence of double vision, peripheral neuropathy, and medication side effects.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired.

She argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to assess two spheres of Criterion 8, and made errors of law and fact in assessing her visual and psychiatric impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the statute did not require further analysis.

The Tribunal also found no errors of law or fact, noting that the applicant's experts failed to follow the AMA Guides' methodology for rating impairments.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied her claims for attendant care, treatment plans, housekeeping, and costs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of fact and law in assessing various Whole Person Impairment (WPI) ratings, including those for upper extremity, mental status, diplopia, medications, and social functioning.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no material breach of procedural fairness as the applicant had ample opportunity to present her case during the 11-day hearing.

Furthermore, the Adjudicator concluded that no errors of fact or law were made that would have resulted in a different outcome.