Rodney Pritchett

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and various assessments.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, relying on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not require attendant care services or the disputed medical benefits and assessments, as they were not supported by the medical evidence.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident, claiming entitlement to occupational therapy, chiropractic services, and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the occupational therapy claim, preferring the respondent's in-person occupational therapy assessment over the applicant's virtual assessment, finding the applicant had achieved maximal recovery and high functionality.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for chiropractic services, finding that the temporary pain relief it provided constituted a reasonable and necessary expense, despite the respondent's argument that the relief was not permanent.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant sought entitlement to numerous treatment plans for physical and psychological therapy, assistive devices, and assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the majority of the treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence and inconsistencies in the expert reports provided.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to translation services, a chronic pain assessment, and an attendant care assessment.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a $250 special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably withholding funding for the applicant's attendant care assessment while funding its own.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) and a partially denied treatment plan for psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence and an in-home assessment showed he could continue his pre-accident activities, albeit at a slower pace.

The NEB claim was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plan for psychological services, preferring the applicant's expert evidence which thoroughly detailed the need for 1.5-hour therapy sessions.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plan with interest, but his claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed due to lack of evidence of unreasonable delay by the insurer.