Natalie S. Maltz

The applicant sought payment for a psychological services treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the respondent's denial notice was deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's Explanation of Benefits complied with the notice requirements by clearly indicating partial approval and referencing an insurer's examination report for the medical reasons.

The claims for the treatment plan, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's late and lengthy submissions was also dismissed, as the conduct did not meet the high threshold for costs.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his request for a catastrophic impairment designation, income replacement benefits, and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Vice-Chair erred by failing to include a contingency for future surgery in his whole person impairment rating and by ignoring expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that whole person impairment is assessed based on the claimant's condition at the time of the hearing without contingencies for future deterioration or surgery.