3 total
Application for catastrophic impairment designation dismissed as applicant failed to meet the required impairment thresholds.
The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) following a 2020 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to extended medical benefits.
The Tribunal assessed the applicant's physical and psychological impairments under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of radiculopathy and rejected several of the applicant's expert ratings, ultimately determining a 25% physical whole person impairment (WPI).
Combined with psychological impairments, the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold.
The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer three marked impairments in his spheres of functioning.
As the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold and the non-CAT limits were exhausted, the application for medical benefits, an award, and interest was dismissed.
Accident benefits denied; injuries fell within Minor Injury Guideline and applicant returned to work.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.
The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, rejecting claims of pre-existing conditions, psychological injury, and chronic pain.
The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's psychological assessment report as it relied solely on self-reporting and contradicted clinical notes.
Consequently, the disputed medical benefits were denied as they exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit.
The claim for income replacement benefits was also dismissed because the applicant had returned to work in a physical role shortly after the accident.
Claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to extend time for service due to unexplained delay.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to discontinue the action against several defendants, amend the statement of claim to identify the defendant Clarke as both operator and owner of the vehicle, and extend/validate service on Clarke.
The court dismissed the motion to extend time and validate service on Clarke, finding the plaintiff's explanations for the significant delay (inaccurate MTO search, firm staffing issues, and COVID-19) insufficient.
The court noted the prejudice to the defendant due to the inability to conduct a prompt investigation.
The order to discontinue against the other named defendants was granted.
