Maria Mikhailitchenko

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that physical and psychological injuries prevented him from working as a self-employed electrician.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The applicant's medical evidence was given little weight as it lacked objective support and did not address his ability to work.

Conversely, the respondent's medical assessments and video surveillance evidence, which showed the applicant performing work-related tasks without apparent difficulty, were accepted.

The application for IRB and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a transport truck for work.

He initially applied for and received benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board-Alberta (WCB), but later attempted to withdraw his claim to pursue statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The WCB refused to withdraw the claim and suspended benefits due to the applicant's failure to participate in treatment.

The Tribunal held that under section 61 of the Schedule, the respondent insurer is not required to pay accident benefits because the applicant continues to be entitled to claim workers' compensation benefits under the WCB.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she was unable to perform her duties as a self-employed cleaner.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The evidence indicated she returned to work three days after the accident, making her ineligible due to the one-week waiting period under the Schedule.

Furthermore, the medical evidence did not support her claim of impairment.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed, as the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant acted unreasonably or frivolously in pursuing the claim.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed the accident exacerbated a pre-existing psychological condition, preventing him from engaging in his normal activities.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that he continued to attend university and work after the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an examination expense of $1,131.44 for an attendant care assessment.

Following a reconsideration decision that directed a re-hearing on the applicability of section 25(1)4 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, neither party provided submissions.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was entitled to the expense because the assessment was completed by a registered nurse, the fee was reasonable and under the $2,000 maximum, and the expense was incurred.

The respondent was ordered to pay the expense with interest.

The applicant and respondent both filed requests for reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of fact and law in finding no causal link between the motor vehicle accident and the applicant's subsequent heart failure and stroke.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, finding the adjudicator correctly applied the 'but for' test and made no reviewable errors in weighing the medical evidence.

The respondent argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by awarding the cost of an attendant care assessment based on section 25(1)4 of the Schedule, a provision neither party had addressed in submissions.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding the adjudicator should have sought submissions on the section, and ordered the issue of the attendant care assessment to be re-heard.

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit and several treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the income replacement benefit, arguing that the applicant's inability to work was due to congestive heart failure, a stroke, and cardiac arrhythmia that were not caused by the accident.

The adjudicator applied the 'but for' test and found that the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the accident and his subsequent cardiac and neurological conditions.

Consequently, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed.

However, the adjudicator found that the applicant was entitled to medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological services, as well as the cost of an attendant care assessment, because these were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related impairments.

A treatment plan for other goods and services was denied.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 cap.

The applicant argued she developed chronic pain, which should exclude her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence, such as clinical notes or assessments, to support her claim of chronic pain.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and fell within the MIG.

The application for a $3,454.30 medical benefit for chiropractic services and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing hypothyroidism and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG cap, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

All claims for benefits were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $200 in costs for repeatedly filing evidence late.

The applicant sought payment for income replacement benefits, psychological treatment, chiropractic treatment, and a driver reintegration program following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to income replacement benefits because she failed to prove she was employed at the time of the accident or for 26 weeks prior.

The claims for psychological treatment and the driver reintegration program were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal granted payment for two chiropractic treatment plans, finding the applicant's preference for facility-based treatment reasonable.

Claims for costs by both parties were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits, costs of examinations, and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the applicant failed to attend a section 44 assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing knee injury was not exacerbated by the accident and that the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant was not entitled to further income replacement benefits, as the applicant failed to attend a scheduled assessment and the medical evidence did not support an inability to work.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy, as well as assessments for chronic pain and neurological issues.

The Tribunal found that the earlier treatment plans for passive care were reasonable and necessary due to the applicant's ongoing pain, but later plans were not, as passive care was no longer providing improvement.

The Tribunal also approved the chronic pain assessment due to persistent pain complaints, but denied the neurological assessment as there were no neurological deficits identified.

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

After a history of failing to participate meaningfully in the arbitration process, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The arbitrator found that the insurer did not prove the applicant was precluded from proceeding under section 50(b) of the Schedule.

However, because the applicant presented no evidence, all claims for benefits were dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses of $1,311.08 due to his conduct.