Tina D. Radimisis

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her pre-existing chronic pain and psychological issues were the primary cause of her impairments, and there was no discernible difference in her life post-accident.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, finding insufficient evidence of a concussion or exacerbation of pre-existing conditions that would preclude recovery within the guideline.

Consequently, the claims for non-earner benefits, medical benefits beyond the funding limit, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits due to her failure to attend a reasonably necessary physiatry insurer's examination without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant also failed to prove that any pre-104 week income replacement benefits remained outstanding.

However, the Tribunal found that four of the five disputed treatment plans, including those for physical therapy, therapeutic devices, a home/attendant care assessment, and a driver reintegration assessment, were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain and functional impairments.

A treatment plan for a psychological assessment was denied as duplicative.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred her from proceeding with her application due to alleged non-attendance at insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider her preliminary issue reply submissions due to an administrative error.

The Tribunal agreed that the failure to consider the submissions caused an unjust outcome and granted the reconsideration, ordering a new hearing on both the preliminary and substantive issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a $110,000 settlement for a minor plaintiff who fractured his tibia after slipping on ice in the defendants' parking garage.

The court found the settlement amount, which accounted for 20% contributory negligence, to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court refused to approve the 30% contingency fee agreement, finding it was not properly executed or explained to the litigation guardian.

The court voided the agreement and assessed the legal fees at 20% of the damages.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying a declaration of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and medical/rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by excluding a 3% rating for medication and an 18% rating for future surgery from the Whole Person Impairment calculation, and by misinterpreting the eligibility criteria for income replacement benefits.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of fact or law.

The Tribunal affirmed that the catastrophic impairment assessment must be based on the applicant's current condition, not a projected condition following future surgery, and that the applicant failed to prove he was self-employed at the time of the accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a caregiver, nor a complete inability to engage in any employment post-104 weeks, and thus denied the IRBs.

However, the Tribunal found the claimed treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, physiotherapy, and mental health therapy to be reasonable and necessary due to objective evidence of physical and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The medical benefits and interest on overdue payments were awarded.