Louis J. DelSignore Jr.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the applicant's incident constituted an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in its consideration of the evidence, including the applicant's examination under oath and an MRI report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent was attempting to re-litigate the weight assigned to the evidence and that no errors of law or fact were made that would have resulted in a different outcome.

The applicant's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after experiencing intense back and leg pain while lifting her son into his car seat and subsequently pressing the accelerator.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the incident did not constitute an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the incident met both the purpose and causation tests, as loading a vehicle and driving are ordinary uses of an automobile, and there was no intervening act breaking the chain of causation.

The Tribunal concluded the incident was an accident and directed the parties to schedule a case conference.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying her income replacement benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

She argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact regarding her credibility and sought to introduce a new medical report as new evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that even if the alleged factual errors regarding her disclosure of modified work and a prior back injury were corrected, the original decision was supported by objective medical evidence and would not have changed.

The motion to admit the new report was also dismissed as it could have been obtained earlier and was merely a new opinion based on existing file information.

The applicant, a 10-year-old passenger injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought a medical benefit of $1,840.00 for optometric services (vision therapy) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the visual issues were not caused by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant's post-accident visual challenges were a result of the accident and could not be mitigated by prescription glasses alone.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the medical benefit and interest on the overdue payment.