Galina Bajenova

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed as she did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Several treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment were approved as reasonable and necessary, while others were denied for lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including six chiropractic treatment plans, an attendant care needs assessment, and an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and had resolved, and that her ongoing complaints stemmed from pre-existing osteoarthritis.

The Tribunal found that the chiropractic treatment plans and attendant care needs assessment were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's physiatrist's reports over the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon's report.

However, the Tribunal granted the orthopaedic assessment, finding that the family doctor's clinical notes corroborated an aggravation of the applicant's pre-existing knee condition caused by the accident.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices compliant with the Schedule and declined to order a special award.

During a personal injury jury trial involving a laceration and subsequent amputation, the court ruled on the permissible ranges of damages counsel could suggest to the jury.

The court also reversed an earlier ruling, deciding to ask the jury to specify the particulars of the defendant's negligence due to scant liability evidence.

Finally, the court granted the defendant's request for an adverse inference instruction regarding the plaintiff's failure to call treating health professionals, noting their evidence was material to causation and damages.

During a personal injury trial involving a plaintiff who was injured by an unidentified hazard in a hardware store, the defendant sought to have the issue of contributory negligence put to the jury.

The court dismissed the request, finding no evidentiary basis for contributory negligence because neither party could identify a foreseeable risk or hazard that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care to avoid.

The plaintiff sought an assessment of damages after the defendant was noted in default for failing to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff sustained serious physical and psychological injuries, including fractured ribs and a punctured lung, when she was thrown from a Jet Ski negligently operated by the defendant.

The court assessed non-pecuniary damages, pecuniary damages for personal care and future medical expenses, and a subrogated claim, awarding a total of $129,939.19 plus costs.