Robert Seredynski

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various treatment plans following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders), noting marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

However, the Tribunal denied all claimed treatment plans because the applicant failed to direct the panel to medical evidence supporting their reasonableness and necessity.

The respondent's claim for repayment of previously funded services was also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her application for catastrophic impairment benefits because she failed to attend an insurer's psychiatric examination.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by barring her entire application and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law as the appellant's counsel had confirmed to the LAT that non-CAT benefits were exhausted, making the CAT designation a prerequisite.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant had ample opportunity to make submissions and attend rescheduled examinations.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to bar the applicant from proceeding with her application for statutory accident benefits under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

The applicant had attended an initial psychiatric insurer's examination but left before it was completed, citing discomfort with the assessor.

The applicant subsequently refused to attend rescheduled examinations with different assessors, arguing they were too intrusive.

The Tribunal found that the insurer was entitled to a complete examination and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

The motion was granted and the application was barred from proceeding.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, and the applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the claims were barred by res judicata, as the applicant had previously appealed the same claims, resulting in a final decision that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and she was not entitled to income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's new medical reports did not constitute fresh, new, and previously unavailable evidence that would impeach the prior decision.

The appeal was dismissed as barred by res judicata, and costs were denied.

The applicant sought to proceed with an application for two treatment plans (attendant care assessment and assistive devices) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was precluded from proceeding because he failed to attend an occupational therapy insurer examination (IE).

The adjudicator found that the respondent's request for the IE was reasonable and that the applicant had a history of non-compliance.

The adjudicator held that the applicant could not proceed with his appeal on the disputed treatment plans until he attended the occupational therapy IE.

Both parties' requests for costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claims for an income replacement benefit and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal ignored medical evidence of pre-existing conditions that would take her outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), improperly admitted surveillance evidence, and breached procedural fairness by denying an in-person hearing and a request to record the proceedings.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that there was no compelling evidence the pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery under the MIG, and no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated IRBs and denied further medical benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on insurer examinations that showed her impairment was temporary and self-limited.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented her from achieving maximal recovery under the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought catastrophic impairment benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer requested five in-person insurer's examinations.

The applicant agreed to three but refused to attend an in-person physiatry examination and a cardiology examination, arguing they were excessive and unreasonable.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application due to her non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the in-person physiatry examination was not 'reasonably necessary' under section 44 of the Schedule, as it was overly intrusive and the insurer already had sufficient information from other assessments to conduct a paper review.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with her claim.