Rasha El-Tawil

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for an attendant care benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal ignored evidence of his reliance on his wife, conflated his awareness of medical restrictions with functional ability, and improperly relied on a catastrophic assessment over an attendant care assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh the evidence and raise new arguments not presented at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal concluded no error of law or fact was established under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for social rehab counseling, a catastrophic impairment assessment, and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal denied the travel expenses for service providers, finding they are not authorized transportation expenses under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also denied the catastrophic impairment assessment costs exceeding the $2,000 statutory cap.

Finally, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant's own self-reporting and occupational therapy assessments indicated he was independent in his activities of daily living.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for social rehab counselling, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had already paid the reasonable hourly rate for social work, the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for physical injuries, and surveillance evidence contradicted the need for occupational therapy.

Claims for an award, interest, and costs were also dismissed.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a catastrophic impairment designation, which was denied by the insurer based on a CAT DAC assessment.

After the two-year limitation period expired, the insured submitted a new application based on an alleged change in condition.

The arbitrator found the limitation period applied but held that a change in condition could permit a reapplication.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate confirmed the arbitrator's finding that there was no factual change in condition, dismissing the insured's appeal.

However, on the insurer's appeal, the Delegate held that the arbitrator erred in law by finding an exception for changed conditions, ruling that under subsection 40(4) of the Schedule, a CAT DAC determination is binding and cannot be circumvented by a reapplication on the same criteria once the limitation period has expired.