Rebecca Suzanne Duplantie

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as his mental and behavioural impairments were moderate (Class 3) rather than marked (Class 4) in the domains of activities of daily living and social functioning.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a post-104-week income replacement benefit, as his combined physical and psychological impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for occupational therapy and attendant care were dismissed as non-catastrophic funding was exhausted.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied a special award.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order that the plaintiffs disclose and produce information regarding an adverse costs insurance policy held by their law firm, which could satisfy a costs judgment.

The plaintiffs argued the policy was not disclosable under the Rules of Civil Procedure and was protected by privilege.

The court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that Rules 30.02(3) and 31.06(4) require disclosure of such policies regardless of who holds them, as they may be liable to satisfy a judgment.

The court found prior conflicting decisions unpersuasive and ordered specific disclosure, reserving on the issue of privilege for later determination if the parties could not agree.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her claims for catastrophic impairment and other benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact and violated procedural fairness by misapprehending medical evidence and disregarding witness testimony.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that while one minor factual omission occurred regarding the cause of the applicant's mobility issues, it would not have changed the outcome.

The adjudicator concluded that the original findings regarding the applicant's pre-existing conditions, credibility, and lack of accident-related impairments were supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a catastrophic impairment and entitlement to medical benefits for an in-home assessment and an in-patient addiction treatment program.

The applicant passed away shortly after the hearing, rendering the catastrophic impairment issue moot.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's polysubstance abuse disorder was directly caused by the accident due to the prescription of opioid medication for accident-related pain.

The Tribunal granted the $21,450.00 treatment plan for the addiction centre as reasonable and necessary, but denied the $1,709.45 assessment plan because it was incurred before submission.

The claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's position was not unreasonable.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy services.

The Tribunal found that it had committed a clear error of fact and law by relying on incorrect submissions that addressed a psychological treatment plan not in dispute.

Upon reviewing the correct submissions, the Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the $2,486.45 physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary to address her chronic pain and functional limitations.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts over the respondent's section 44 assessor, noting the latter failed to contemplate a chronic pain diagnosis.

The request for reconsideration was granted and the treatment plan was approved.