Ms. Yegendorf

The appellant, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a 1999 motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his entitlement to attendant care benefits.

The LAT had awarded a minimal monthly amount, focusing on the care actually provided by his family rather than his need for supervisory care due to his inability to respond to emergencies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test under the 1996 SABS and that the decision was unreasonable.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired and not entitled to an attendant care benefit.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in fact and law by not finding he had mental and behavioural impairments of at least 19%.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact.

The adjudicator reiterated that the respondent's psychiatric expert was preferred over the applicant's expert, and that the applicant's own initial psychological assessor found no diagnosable psychological impairment.

The claim for attendant care benefits was also dismissed as moot and unsupported by evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought various statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under the Schedule, preferring the insurer's expert evidence that the applicant did not suffer a marked psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to non-earner benefits, as his physical injuries caused a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and certain treatment plans were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, though an occupational therapy assessment was approved.

The claim for a special award was denied.