Tiziana Serpa

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological services, a catastrophic impairment assessment, and a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the higher psychologist rate for services provided by a supervised psychotherapist, awarding $598.32.

However, further psychological services were denied as the applicant had reached maximal improvement and was independent in daily living.

The catastrophic impairment assessment was also denied due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to an accident-related psychological impairment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's section 44 assessors.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life under the Heath test.

Several treatment plans were found payable either because they were reasonable and necessary or because the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons for denial as required by section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

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

In a previous 2020 decision, the Tribunal found the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant brought a second application seeking removal from the MIG based on alleged new medical evidence and claiming entitlement to additional treatment plans.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the applicant from relitigating the MIG issue, as the new medical reports did not constitute fresh evidence that would conclusively impeach the original result.

The Tribunal also found the respondent provided proper notice of denial for the disputed treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought various statutory accident benefits including attendant care, multiple treatment plans, and assessments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing many of the claimed needs arose from a subsequent accident rather than the subject accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care or most of the treatment plans, as she failed to differentiate her injuries between the two accidents and lacked corroborating recommendations from treating physicians.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a chronic pain assessment and an MRI, preferring the evidence of the applicant's specialized medical assessor over the respondent's family physician.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), chiropractic services, and psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment.

The Tribunal also found the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's s. 44 assessment reports which the applicant did not dispute.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied benefits and scheduled insurer's examinations, which the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent argued the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing under section 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notices of examination did not comply with section 44(5) because they failed to provide sufficient medical reasons, relying only on the passage of time and an unspecified impairment.

As the notices were deficient, the applicant was not barred from proceeding with her application.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals arising from the plaintiff's examination for discovery, and for re-attendance.

The parties resolved many issues by consent.

The primary contested issue was whether the defendants were required to pay the cost of obtaining records before they were produced.

The Master held that, absent an agreement, the defendants were not required to bear the cost of production at this stage, leaving the issue to the trial judge's discretion.

The Master also ordered the plaintiff to re-attend discovery if necessary, with parties bearing their own costs in the normal course.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants in the cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from a 2008 bicycle and motor vehicle accident and had been dismissed twice for failing to set the matter down for trial.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that plaintiff's counsel had lost contact with their client.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice due to the passage of time, the loss of access to older medical records, and the inability to conduct a timely independent medical examination regarding a pre-existing knee condition.

The motion was dismissed.