Dr. Rosenblatt

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert assessors, noting their reliance on self-reports and lack of supporting medical documentation.

Conversely, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's psychiatric assessment, which concluded the applicant suffered only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 and 8 following a 2006 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove catastrophic impairment, noting pre-existing depression and degenerative disc disease, as well as multiple subsequent accidents.

The Tribunal excluded several of the applicant's expert reports because the experts were not called to testify, denying the respondent the right to cross-examine.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, all claims for treatment plans, assessments, and attendant care incurred more than 10 years post-accident were dismissed.

Claims for a section 10 award and interest were also dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test for causation regarding her psychological and behavioural impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator correctly applied the legal test for causation and that her conclusions were factual findings supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the adjudicator's finding that the appellant failed to prove a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and entitlement to attendant care benefits and various treatment plans following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was causation, as the applicant experienced subsequent accidents, medical conditions including seizures and a Hills-Sachs lesion, and significant life stressors post-accident.

The Tribunal found that while the accident initially exacerbated pre-existing physical impairments and triggered some psychological symptoms, the applicant's current severe psychological impairments were caused by intervening life events and medical issues unrelated to the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the 'but for' test for causation, dismissing the application for catastrophic designation and all claimed benefits.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and emotional damage.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive medical and occupational therapy evidence, finding that the applicant's pre-accident active lifestyle had been replaced by severe avoidant behaviours, fatigue, and an inability to cope with stress.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychiatric assessor over the respondent's, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment in the domain of adaptation.

The claims for interest and a special award were dismissed as there were no specific monetary benefits in dispute.