3 total
Application for Non-Earner Benefits and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline dismissed.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting he had resumed working as an Uber driver.
The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical assessments which found no significant functional or psychological impairments.
The application was dismissed.
Appeal of LAT decision denying maximum attendant care benefits and home modifications dismissed.
The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding her entitlement to attendant care benefits and home modifications under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.
The appellant argued LAT erred in determining the applicable hourly rates, assessing her need for supervisory care, denying home modifications, and violating her Charter equality rights by distinguishing between mental and physical impairments.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as LAT correctly applied the 1996 Schedule rates, provided adequate reasons for preferring the respondent's expert evidence, and appropriately applied the reasonable and necessary test for home modifications.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as requested treatments and devices were for pre-existing conditions.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for assistive devices and laser foot therapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.
The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the applicant failed to prove the requested treatments and devices were required due to accident-related impairments.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant's mobility and balance issues were pre-existing, and the foot numbness was related to prior chemotherapy.