Veronica Gorrell

The applicant sought outstanding balances for attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had partially approved the invoices using a ratio method because the invoices lacked the required particulars to substantiate the services provided.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate she incurred the full balance of the invoices and upheld the respondent's use of the ratio method.

The application for outstanding benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her accident-related injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by failing to properly consider the medical evidence of her neurologist and chiropractor regarding her chronic pain.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the original Tribunal properly weighed the evidence, provided adequate reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted medical reports, and made no errors of law or fact in its application of the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a $1,954.30 physiotherapy treatment plan.

The respondent denied the treatment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a psychological impairment and post-concussion syndrome.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish an accident-related psychological impairment or concussion.

The adjudicator accepted the respondent's section 44 assessment and hospital records indicating minor physical injuries.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remains subject to the MIG.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding because he submitted his application for benefits (OCF-1) beyond the 30-day prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove it properly delivered the application package or explained the process to the applicant, who had limited English skills and had not consented to email delivery.

Applying the Horvath factors, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay and allowed the claim to proceed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied benefits because the applicant failed to submit his OCF-1 application within 30 days of receiving the forms, as required by section 32(5) of the Schedule.

The applicant submitted the forms approximately 10 months late and argued he had a reasonable explanation because he was a newcomer to Canada unaware of his rights and believed his injuries would resolve.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law and a belief that injuries will resolve do not constitute a reasonable explanation under section 34.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and was not entitled to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in evaluating his chronic pain syndrome claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and reweigh evidence, specifically regarding the expert report of a physiatrist and the application of the AMA Guidelines for diagnosing chronic pain.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him an award or interest in relation to his claim for income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued that the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact regarding his mental capacity following a hit-and-run accident that caused a traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal found no error in its application of the presumption of capacity under the Substitute Decisions Act, noting that the respondent was not required to investigate capacity based on comments from a lay relative.

Furthermore, under section 36(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the applicant was not entitled to IRBs prior to submitting a completed disability certificate, regardless of capacity.

The Tribunal also found that the failure to explicitly address the Human Rights Code in the initial decision would not have changed the outcome.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological, and podiatry assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing back condition and chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain with functional impairment, as the applicant did not meet the criteria under the AMA Guidelines and maintained independence in his activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed, and claims for a special award and interest were denied.

The insurer applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of income replacement benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, independent examination costs, and investigation costs, alleging the respondent staged the motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the accident was staged, relying on expert evidence that the vehicle damage was caused by a tow truck stinger rather than a rear-end collision.

The respondent was ordered to repay the income replacement and medical/rehabilitation benefits with interest under section 52 of the Schedule.

However, the adjudicator held that the Schedule does not provide for the repayment of insurer examination or investigation costs, and declined to award them as costs under Rule 19.

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

The adjudicator found the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) because a CT scan confirmed she sustained a fractured pisiform in her left wrist.

The adjudicator approved a $1,596.00 physiotherapy treatment plan as reasonable and necessary, awarding interest on the overdue amount.

However, the claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit a completed disability certificate in a timely manner and did not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The moving parties, defendants in a motor vehicle collision action, brought a motion to compel the Crown to provide further documentary discovery and produce a representative for oral discovery.

The action against the Crown was brought under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA).

The court considered conflicting jurisprudence on whether the Crown can be compelled to give discovery under the PTHIA.

Applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the court followed the Court of Appeal's decision in Longo, holding that the Crown cannot be compelled to submit to documentary or oral discovery in such claims.

The motion was dismissed.