Starr Robinson

The applicant, who had pre-existing autism, was involved in a motor vehicle accident while riding her bike.

She sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and various statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing her impairments were solely related to her pre-existing autism.

The Tribunal found that the accident was a necessary cause of her worsened psychological condition, leading to an extreme impairment in adaptation.

The applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired and awarded ongoing attendant care benefits and partial occupational therapy costs, but denied past attendant care benefits and other treatment plans.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) due to psychological impairments following a 2012 motor vehicle accident, and claimed housekeeping and attendant care benefits.

The respondent argued the impairments were caused by a prior 2006 accident and that the housekeeping claim was statute-barred.

The Tribunal applied the discoverability rule from Tomec, finding the housekeeping claim was not statute-barred since the applicant could not claim it until deemed CAT.

The Tribunal found the 2012 accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing condition, causing Somatic Symptom Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.

Preferring the applicant's expert evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a marked impairment in activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation, meeting the CAT threshold under Criterion 8.

The applicant was awarded housekeeping benefits upon proof they are incurred, but attendant care benefits and a bad faith award were denied.

The applicant, an 80-year-old pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sustained physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury, resulting in catastrophic impairment.

She sought a housing modification benefit of $158,476.89.

The respondent insurer partially approved $24,282.00 based on its own assessments, arguing the applicant's proposed modifications were excessive.

The Tribunal found the applicant's proposal largely unrealistic and disproportionate, preferring the respondent's more modest proposal.

However, the Tribunal also approved the applicant's request for an accessible kitchen package and closet organizers as reasonable and necessary to accommodate her accident-related impairments.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, attendant care benefits, and medical benefits for dental services and a TMJ assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to provide a pre-accident baseline to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the non-earner benefit.

The attendant care claim was denied because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred, relying on non-contemporaneous expense sheets.

The medical benefits were denied due to insufficient evidence establishing a causal link between the accident and the dental/TMJ issues.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic injuries rendering him a tetraplegic in a motor vehicle accident, sought a rehabilitation benefit for the construction of a new home.

The parties agreed that building a new home was more reasonable than renovating the applicant's existing home.

The Tribunal considered section 16(4)(c) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which limits the cost of a new home to the notional cost of renovating the existing home.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence regarding the estimated renovation costs and awarded $64,615.00 in addition to the previously approved amount.

The Tribunal also found that, as a status Indian residing on a reserve, the applicant was exempt from paying HST on the construction costs.