Dr. Shamisa

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for chiropractic services, psychotherapy, a neurological assessment, a chronic pain assessment, and physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that any of the disputed treatment plans or assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence, including independent medical evaluations and the applicant's own expert reports, largely recommended home-based exercises and did not support the need for the proposed facility-based treatments or specialized assessments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant sought statutory accident benefits after suffering a spinal cord hemorrhage and paraplegia following a stressful incident involving aggressive driving by motorcyclists and her driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied benefits, finding the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the Tribunal's analysis of the expert medical evidence unreasonable and its application of the intervening cause and dominant feature tests legally flawed.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.