Shafi v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 69513

Shafi v. Intact Insurance Company

Citation: Shafi v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 23-001922/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-001922/AABS

In the matter of an application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.

Between:

Rakeeya Shafi

Applicant

and

Intact Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Brian Norris

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Mikolaj T. Grodzki, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Christine McKenna, Counsel

HEARD:

By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Rakeeya Shafi (“the Applicant”) was involved in an automobile accident on February 22, 2018, and sought benefits from Intact Insurance Company (“the Respondent”) pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”).

2The parties disagree as to whether the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident. The Applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

i. Has the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as defined by the Schedule?

ii. Is the Respondent liable to pay an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits to the Applicant?

RESULT

4The Applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

5No award is payable.

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

6Prior to the start of the written hearing, the Applicant moved to exclude all evidence from Dr. P. Judge, who conducted an insurer’s examination (“IE”) on the Applicant and issued a report which is part of the Respondent’s catastrophic impairment assessment reports. The Applicant submits that Dr. Judge is a registered psychologist who is not a medical doctor and is unable to opine on catastrophic criterion 8, mental and behavioural impairments, by operation of section 45(2) of the Schedule.

7The Applicant relies predominantly on Lanzon v. Economical Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 42578 ONLAT (“Lanzon”). The Applicant in Lanzon was denied a catastrophic impairment determination on the basis that his catastrophic impairment assessment report was conducted by a psychologist, instead of a physician, as required in section 45(2) of the Schedule.

8The Respondent disagrees that the evidence should be excluded. First, it submits that the decision to exclude the report was addressed at the case conference and the adjudicator at that time ruled that the Tribunal did not have the authority to grant such relief at the case conference and that the Applicant’s arguments regarding the weight to be assigned to the evidence can be made at the hearing. It also submits that the Lanzon decision was sent back for a rehearing of the issues following a reconsideration decision, and later overturned. Lastly, it submits that the Applicant’s catastrophic impairment assessment report by Dr. B. Ross, psychiatrist, is akin to a rebuttal report and frames the Applicant’s position as, essentially, whoever issues the most recent report wins.

9I find no basis to exclude the Respondent’s reports. As submitted by the Respondent, the Lanzon decision was overturned, and is not binding on me.

10More importantly, I find that the parameters outlined in section 45 of the Schedule, which the Applicant seeks to use to bar the Respondent’s report, apply to applications for a catastrophic impairment made by an insured person and are not applicable to insurers. Specifically, section 45(1) states:

An insured person who sustains an impairment as a result of an accident may apply to the insurer for a determination of whether the impairment is a catastrophic impairment.

11As the opening of section 45 of the Schedule notes, the section addresses an application for a catastrophic impairment determination. It is the insured person who applies for a determination of catastrophic impairment – not an insurer.

12Subsections 45(2)1-3 discusses the rules an insured person must follow to meet their onus to demonstrate that they sustained a catastrophic impairment. The language in sections 45(2)1-3 does not provide any guidance to insurers. Specifically, the sections state:

1. An assessment or examination in connection with a determination of catastrophic impairment shall be conducted only by a physician but the physician may be assisted by such other regulated health professionals as he or she may reasonably require.

2. Despite paragraph 1, if the impairment is a traumatic brain impairment only, the assessment or examination may be conducted by a neuropsychologist who may be assisted by such other regulated health professionals as he or she may reasonably require.

3. If a Guideline specifies conditions, restrictions or limits with respect to the determination of whether an impairment is a catastrophic impairment, the determination must be made in accordance with those conditions, restrictions and limits.

13While the Schedule is consumer protection legislation, it cannot be said that the Respondent’s IE reports must be excluded if they do not comply with section 45(2). This is because section 45(2) does not make any rules for insurers and does not impose upon insurer’s what the catastrophic impairment IE reports must address.

14Sections 45(3) and 45(5) outline the rules for insurers when responding to an application for a determination of catastrophic impairment. Specifically, section 45(3) states:

3. Within 10 business days after receiving an application under subsection (1) prepared and signed by the person who conducted the assessment or examination under subsection (2), the insurer shall give the insured person,

(a) a notice stating that the insurer has determined that the impairment is a catastrophic impairment; or

(b) a notice stating that the insurer has determined that the impairment is not a catastrophic impairment and specifying the medical and any other reasons for the insurer’s decision and, if the insurer requires an examination under section 44 relating to whether the impairment is a catastrophic impairment, so advising the insured person.

15Section 45(5) compels insurers to provide the determination derived from IEs to the insured person within 10 business days after receiving the report.

16There is nothing in sections 45(3) and 45(5) that compels insurers to have a particular healthcare practitioner, such as a physician, conduct the assessment. At most, current jurisprudence requires a reasonable nexus between the examination request and the insured persons injuries. It would be improper to impose rules upon insurers where none are established in either the legislation or jurisprudence.

17As noted by the adjudicator who conducted the case conference for this matter, the Applicant’s arguments are more appropriate to address the weight afforded to the Respondent’s IE reports. However, as I will outline in my decision, the Applicant has not met her onus to demonstrate that she sustained a catastrophic impairment.

BACKGROUND

18The Applicant was struck on her left side by a vehicle while crossing an urban intersection. She was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance to the hospital. At the hospital, the Applicant complained of left-sided soreness from her neck down to her knee, and a minor headache. Hospital records expressly state that the Applicant reported no loss of consciousness, and she was alert and oriented while at the hospital. Physicians at the hospital diagnosed her with soft tissue injuries, discharged her on the same day, and recommended she avoid work for a few days and take pain medication.

19The Applicant met with her family physician, Dr. A. Barnes, the following day due to ongoing and unspecific aches that were not relieved with over-the-counter pain medication. Dr. Barnes recorded that there was no loss of consciousness in the accident and that the Applicant was diagnosed at the hospital with soft tissue injuries. Dr. Barnes recommended that the Applicant take Naprosyn as required, and rest or take a warm bath with Epsom salts if she remains symptomatic. She returned to the clinic three days later, with similar complaints and was examined. The Applicant exhibited some pain with lumbar spine flexion, but otherwise demonstrated full range of motion (“ROM”) throughout her body. She was advised to continue with her current medication, given prescription muscle relaxants, and recommended to start physiotherapy and massage therapy.

20The Applicant continued to complain of headaches and back pain following the accident, as documented by Dr. Barnes’ clinical notes and records (“CNRs”). Eventually, Dr. Barnes began characterizing some of the Applicant’s complaints as post-concussion and/or a head injury, and referred her to a concussion clinic, but records from the referral are not before me. Additionally, the Applicant complained of ongoing psychological symptoms, which Dr. Barnes prescribed medication for.

21Now the Applicant claims that her condition deteriorated to the point that she sustained a class 5, extreme, mental and behavioural impairment as a result of the accident. Thus, she seeks a determination that her accident-related injuries are catastrophic.

ANALYSIS

22The onus lies with the Applicant to demonstrate that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 of the Schedule as a result of the accident. To do so, she must demonstrate that she sustained class 4 mental and behavioural impairments in three of the four areas of function, or a class 5 mental and behavioural impairment in one area of function, in accordance with American Medical Association Guides (“the AMA Guides”).

23In the case at hand, the Applicant advances her claim solely on the bases that she sustained a class 5 mental and behavioural impairment in the area of adaptation to work and work-like settings.

24According to the AMA Guides, a class 5, extreme, mental and behavioural impairment is not compatible with useful function. The AMA Guides note that a person with an extreme impairment in the domain of adaptation to work and work-like settings cannot tolerate any change at all in routines or in the environment, or one who cannot function and who decompensates when schedules change in an otherwise structured environment. For example, a person has an extreme limitation of adaptive functioning and an extreme psychiatric impairment and that they may have a psychotic episode if a meal is not served on time or might have a panic attack when left without a companion in any situation. In the ordinary individual, according to the AMA Guides, an extreme impairment in only one class would be likely to preclude the performance of any complex task, such as one involving recreation or work. Whereas a person with a class 4, marked impairment, in two or more spheres would likely be precluded from performing complex tasks without special support or assistance, such as that provided in a sheltered environment.

25I find that the Applicant has not met her onus to demonstrate she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident. My decision is based largely on the limited weight I afford to the report of Dr. B. Ross, psychiatrist, dated September 27, 2022, as well as my conclusion that the Applicant’s impairment in the domain of adaptation, as demonstrated in the various reports before me, does not preclude her from useful functioning.

Dr. B. Ross’ report, dated September 27, 2022

26The Applicant relies largely on the report of Dr. Ross, psychiatrist, dated September 27, 2022 (“the Ross report”). Dr. Ross concluded that the Applicant meets the criteria for a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 because she suffers from a class 5, extreme, mental and behavioural impairment. A class 5 impairment in the domain of adaptation to work and work-like settings is the only path at this hearing for the Applicant to be deemed to have sustained a catastrophic impairment because her impairments in the domains of Daily Living, Social Functioning, and Concentration, Persistence and Pace are class 3, moderate, impairments, according to Dr. Ross.

27I discount the Ross report because it does not account for the Applicant’s pre-existing health concerns. Dr. Ross reported that the Applicant did not have any pre-accident health problems, nor that she was on medication at the time of the accident. In contrast, the Applicant’s bloodwork prior to the accident, as well as notes from visits with Dr. Barnes, demonstrate that the Applicant was showing the early signs of diabetes and was referred for further testing, had osteoarthritis in the left wrist and pelvis, as well as a left foot calcaneal spur.

28I further discount the Ross report because it does not include an occupational therapy (“OT”) assessment, and particularly a situational assessment, which I find undermines the overall persuasiveness of the report. In fact, neither Dr. Ross nor any physician assistant assessed the Applicant in-person for this report. OT and situational assessments are valuable components of a catastrophic impairment determination because they provide a glimpse into the Applicant’s function, or dysfunction, in certain settings. While such OT assessments are imperfect, as the assessor is unable to test for all situations, the assessments nevertheless provide valuable insight into how a person reacts to different stressors. The absence of such assessments critically undermines Dr. Ross’ findings because those findings are without consideration for how the Applicant performs when put in a stressful situation. Instead of obtaining objective data in a situational assessment, Dr. Ross derived his information from the Applicant’s self-reported dysfunction, which was reported inconsistently throughout the evidence. A catastrophic impairment report on criterion 8 that does not include any OT or situational assessment holds little weight because it lacks objective functional data and does not address the Applicant’s functional abilities nor opine on whether any physical impairments impact the Applicant’s function as opposed to function being impacted solely by mental and behavioural impairments.

29I find the absence of an OT assessment compromises the overall persuasiveness of the Ross report because a multidisciplinary approach is important to determine whether the Applicant’s functional impairments are due to her diagnosed mental and behavioural disorder. In Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 642, which is binding upon me, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded at paragraph [63] that the AMA Guides acknowledge the difficulty in separating pain from physical causes from pain from mental and behavioral impairments and suggest a multi-disciplinary approach as a result.

30Overall, I find the Ross report reads as a rebuttal report or as a report procured by an advocate, for which I give it less weight because it detracts from the overall reliability and objectivity of the report. For example, Dr. Ross provided several comments critical of findings in the IE reports, yet his report includes its own deficiencies that are far more impactful in discounting the overall reliability of the report. In the report, Dr. Ross failed to include a list of the documents reviewed for the assessment, relied excessively on the Applicant’s self-reporting that contradicts contemporaneous records, and failed to discuss the Applicant’s health history pre-dating the accident, or day-to-day care with her family physician following the accident. It reads as an advocacy report because Dr. Ross spends considerable time attempting to convince the reader that the Applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, which the Applicant’s medical record indicates is not nearly as clear as Dr. Ross suggests. The Ross report also focuses a considerable amount of time on refuting findings in the Respondent’s IE reports.

31Further, I find Dr. Ross’s report has no consideration for the ambulance and emergency room records and other records immediately following the accident. The ambulance and emergency room records state that the Applicant denied any loss of consciousness or hitting her head in the accident. Further, neither of the records suggest that the Applicant was confused at the scene of the accident. Yet, Dr. Ross concluded from the Applicant’s self-reports that she was confused at the scene and sustained a mild traumatic brain injury because the Applicant reported that she could not remember the accident. I find it remarkable that Dr. Ross’ report includes comment on some of the other medical evidence but does not include an index of documents reviewed for the report. Thus, I am unable to clearly determine where the information in Dr. Ross’s report comes from and conclude that the information was derived from the Applicant, whose reporting can be inconsistent at times.

32Moreover, I find Dr. Ross relies solely on the Applicant’s self-reporting of the Accident and immediate aftermath, which can be inconsistent from contemporaneous records. For example, from the Applicant’s self-reporting, Dr. Ross reported that the Applicant sustained bruising on the left side of her body from her face to her left leg and exhibited confusion and a loss of memory of events immediately before or after the accident. Dr. Ross concluded from this that the Applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury as a result of the collision. In making this determination, Dr. Ross does not address the ambulance records which, contrary to his finding, deny any loss of consciousness, do not state that the Applicant hit her head and state that the Applicant had no visible trauma to her head and was non-tender on palpation. Dr. Ross also failed to comment on the emergency room records, which also deny any loss of consciousness and state that the Applicant was alert and oriented at the hospital immediately following the accident. Similarly, Dr. Ross never commented on Dr. Barnes’ February 23, 2018 entry, in which the Applicant’s clear and contemporaneous reports of the accident are documented, which states that the Applicant experienced no loss of consciousness, was alert and oriented during the exam, and never reported any difficulty remembering the accident. The direct contrast between the accounts in the Ross report and the contemporaneous accounts causes me to discount the Ross report.

33Following the accident, the Applicant was characterized by healthcare practitioners as an unreliable historian, which further undermines the Ross report because it relied almost entirely on her self-reports. For instance, CNRs from a July 12, 2018 visit with Dr. Barnes state that the Applicant is difficult to assess due to “constant interruptions”, not answering direct questions, being tangential, and an ongoing concern for her “legal troubles”. Dr. Barnes concluded the note from that visit by stating that the Applicant has ongoing musculoskeletal pain since the accident, that no specific major injuries have been identified, and that she has a catastrophizing personality. In an October 1, 2018 clinical entry, Dr. Barnes again reported that the Applicant was a very difficult historian who interrupts and changes the topic frequently and is difficult to get back onto the original line of questioning. Similarly, in an entry dated November 22, 2018, Dr. Barnes noted that the Applicant was difficult to get history from, frequently interrupted, and was very tangential. I must discount a report that relies on inaccurate information.

34Additionally, it is noted in the psychological assessment IE report by Dr. D. Schmidt, psychologist, dated September 23, 2019, that the Applicant provided inconsistent reporting and found that the Applicant’s endorsements on certain psychometric testing was invalid due to inconsistent responding. In a December 17, 2019 assessment report by D. Evans, occupational therapist, the Applicant reported losing consciousness in the accident, contrary to the ambulance and hospital records immediately following the accident.

35Records from an August 10, 2020 telephone consultation with Dr. Barnes again noted that the Applicant was very tangential, a difficult historian, and difficult to interrupt or redirect. In a psychological assessment report, by Dr. T. Ricci, psychologist, dated October 15, 2020, it was noted that the Applicant has a tendency to magnify and catastrophize her symptoms.

36During a telephone consultation, on February 4, 2021, Dr. Barnes noted that the Applicant was not regularly taking Amitriptyline for her headaches and that it would be much more effective if she takes it regularly. In another telephone consultation, on January 21, 2022, Dr. Barnes again noted that the Applicant “very tangential and difficult to redirect, as usual”. In a neuropsychological assessment report, by Dr. C. Bradbury, psychologist, dated April 28, 2021, it is noted that the Applicant produced invalid psychometric test results. Dr. Bradbury stated that “findings from several tests of effort and as well as clinical observations made during testing, indicate that the current findings significantly underestimate the Applicant’s true level of neurocognitive potential, and concluded that the overall neuropsychological assessment results are considered to be invalid.

37On February 11, 2022, Dr. Barnes noted a conversation with the Applicant’s counsel, and opined that the Applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury with soft tissue injuries, and has some degree of ongoing symptoms related to it. However, the note states that there is also evidence of a histrionic personality and over-presentation of symptoms based on both Dr. Barnes’ assessments as well as the assessments by various specialists.

38All of the above records suggest that the Applicant’s self-reporting is unreliable and must be viewed together with all the other medical evidence. Yet, the report by Dr. Ross is far too dependant on the Applicant’s account regarding her health and care before and after the accident. Compounding the issue is that, except for the catastrophic impairment IE reports, Dr. Ross does not account for any records reviewed as part of the assessment and at no point comments on Dr. Barnes’ records or opinion on the Applicant’s condition. A catastrophic impairment report without any index of documents listed, which includes historical accounts that directly contradict contemporaneous records, holds little-to-no weight.

39To me, the deficiencies in the methodology of Dr. Ross’ report demonstrate that it should hold less weight. However, when Dr. Ross’ report is reviewed together with the other evidence, I find that it holds no weight because it is clear that the conclusions in Dr. Ross’ report understate the Applicant’s function in the domain of adaptation to work and work-like settings such that an extreme impairment is not warranted.

The Applicant’s impairments do not preclude useful functioning

40I find on the evidence that the Applicant’s impairments do not preclude useful functioning and thus, are not of the magnitude to find that she sustained a class 5, extreme, mental and behavioural impairment as a result of the accident.

41According to Dr. Ross, adaptation to work and work-like settings “refers to being able to adapt to stressful situations, such as what one would be experienced in a work or work-like setting. An impairment may be evident if an individual withdraws from this type of situation when faced with stressors, or they experience an exacerbation of signs and symptoms.”

42I find there are several examples of functionality exhibited by the Applicant in the Ross report, particularly in the domain of adaptation to work and work-like settings, that do not support an extreme impairment. For example, Dr. Ross notes that the Applicant completed the following tasks following the accident which, to me, are incompatible with a class 5 impairment:

i. The Applicant completes her grocery shopping independently by using a taxi or getting rides from friends, with consideration for her personal budget and applicable sales;

ii. She is able to cross small streets independently (though I recognize that she continues to avoid crossing busier streets);

iii. She often cares for her son’s dog, including overnight, and taking it for walks;

iv. She uses taxis and Para Transpo, a public transit service for customers unable to take conventional transit, to attend the mall and do shopping;

v. She socializes with her cousin biweekly, which can include going out for food together;

vi. She occasionally has friends visit, or she goes out with them; and

vii. She visits with her elderly mother with regularity.

43The above examples are drawn solely from the report by Dr. Ross. All these examples demonstrate functionality that are incompatible with an extreme impairment according the AMA Guides as they demonstrate that the Applicant can function in an unstructured environment – something that a person with a class 5, extreme, mental and behavioural impairment would be unable to do. This is because a person engaging in the activities outlined above would naturally encounter unexpected changes or stressors that would render the person to decompensate, withdraw, or totally avoid the activities, which the evidence does not suggest happens to the Applicant.

44The Applicant is able to curb decompensation due to stress. The Ross report concludes that the Applicant can become stressed easily, causing her to “lash out”, but gave no examples of situations where this occurred. However, according to the Applicant’s own reporting in the Ross report, she manages to avoid lashing out in public, such as in a store. Likewise, the Applicant reported stress due to cognitive decline, which causes her difficulty in finding items in her purse like her keys or debit card. However, she has managed to cope with these impairments by using a smaller purse and carrying less items when going out.

45To me, a person who is able to manage their reaction to stressors in public, or is able to modify their behaviour in order to cope with such stressors, as what is reported by the Applicant, does not suffer an extreme mental and behavioural impairment.

46To me, the concerns for the Applicant’s inability to work, or for her curbing her socializing, is primarily related to physical pain. In the Ross report, the Applicant states that the main reason for her incapacity to work is pain and an inability to tolerate movements of her neck, shoulders, and back, as well as when bending over. These are predominantly physical concerns and Dr. Ross’ report does not explain how these physical concerns are manifested from mental and behavioural impairments. Moreover, even if it was concluded that the physical concerns stem from a mental and behavioural impairment, I find the limitations described do not amount to an extreme impairment, or an impairment that precludes useful functioning or is not compatible with useful function.

47The two examples of limited function, as provided by the Applicant in the Ross report, do not depict someone with an extreme mental and behavioural impairment. First, the Applicant suggests to Dr. Ross that she limits her commitments and social activities due to a fear of being unable to participate due to headaches, and her neck and back pain. While she does not provide specific examples here, I nevertheless find that such behaviour is not indicative of an extreme impairment, or an impairment that precludes useful functioning or is not compatible with useful function because no secondary source of information was gathered to confirm that she limits her commitments and social activity. Additionally, limiting commitments and social activity is not indicative of a person with an extreme mental and behavioural impairment. The Ross report would be more helpful if it provided examples of how the Applicant reacts to changes in her social commitments, rather than how she limits her activities.

48More important to the Applicant and Dr. Ross is the example of the Applicant’s trip to Toronto for an assessment, which I find is not an example of an extreme impairment, or an impairment that precludes useful functioning or is not compatible with useful function. On November 18, 2018, the Applicant travelled by air to Toronto to participate in an assessment. She reports that she travelled alone to Toronto in the early morning and waited in the waiting room for the entire day, until her assessment at about 5:30 p.m. She reported that she was without food and decided to get food from a nearby business while she waited, which included crossing a street. She reports having a panic attack attempting to cross a four-way intersection and requiring help from another pedestrian when she crossed back upon her return. The Applicant further reports that upon her return to Ottawa, she had severe neck and head pain and “passed out”. She reports that the pilot assisted her, and an ambulance was called and took her to the hospital.

49I find the Toronto trip example to be uncompelling and not an example of an extreme impairment or an impairment that precludes useful functioning or is not compatible with useful functioning. First, the Applicant has demonstrated herself to be an inaccurate historian and any historical account from her must be viewed critically, together with secondary sources. Yet the Applicant has provided no evidence to support her claims of an adverse reaction to the stress from the Toronto trip. The hospital records from that day, the Applicant’s decoded OHIP summary, as well as the report generated from the assessment that day are all not before me. The only secondary source of information for this event is Dr. Barnes CNRs from the following day. According to those records, the Applicant reported that she had to wait about 5 hours without food, felt unwell upon returning home, and was sent to the emergency room when she returned to the airport, and that they did not do anything. There is no account of a panic attack in Dr. Barnes’ records, and no comment or apparent concern from Dr. Barnes in the record from the event. Instead, it appears that Dr. Barnes was overall dismissive of the event and commented that, after allowing the Applicant to vent about her experience, she was redirected to her active concerns and advised that she needed a refill of pain medication.

50At most, this episode regarding her travel to Toronto demonstrates that the Applicant exhibits the functionality to fly to an out-of-town assessment, participate in it, and return home without her mental and behavioural impairments precluding useful function. This is because the Applicant’s primary complaint following the flight back from Toronto, which she alleges caused her trip to the hospital, was neck and head pain. These are physical impairments that appear to be hampering the Applicant. Whereas, a class 5 impairment under Criterion 8 pertains to mental and behavioural impairments. To me, it cannot be said that the Applicant’s alleged admission to the hospital following the flight back from Toronto was due to mental and behavioural impairments.

51Considering the totality of the evidence, as outlined above, I find that the Ross report holds no weight due to the deficiencies in the methodology of the report, and because the conclusions in the report understate the Applicant’s function in the domain of adaptation to work and work-like settings. Accordingly, I conclude that the Applicant has not met her onus to demonstrate that she sustained a class 5 mental and behavioural impairment as a result of the accident.

52In concluding that the Applicant has not met her onus to demonstrate that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident, it follows that an analysis of the Respondent’s evidence is unnecessary.

Award

53The issue of entitlement to an award was outlined in the case conference report and order for this hearing, but neither party made any submissions on the issue.

54An analysis on entitlement to an award is unnecessary in this case. Having received no submissions on the issue, and having found that the Applicant never met her onus to demonstrate that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident, it follows that no award is payable.

ORDER

55The Applicant has not met her onus to demonstrate she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

56No award is payable.

57The Application is dismissed.