Category: Catastrophic Impairment

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment. Her primary argument was that the LAT erred in rejecting the evidence of her chiropractor in the ratings for Criterion 6, 7, and 8. The Tribunal rejected the chiropractor’s evidence insofar as the chiropractor gave opinion and diagnosis of psychological injury, and preferred the evidence of the insurer’s experts who were qualified to diagnose psychological conditions. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the law in restricting the scope of the chiropractor’s admissible evidence. The SABS and AMA Guides permit a chiropractor to give certain opinions on catastrophic impairment when it comes to physical impairment ratings, but does not allow a chiropractor to give evidence outside of their qualified areas of expertise.

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claimant’s appeal was essentially a re-argument of the evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to weigh the evidence as it saw fit, and the adjudicator provided full and cogent reasons for the decision. There was no error of law or denial of procedural fairness to the claimant.

The claimant appealed and sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2002 accident. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant’s impairments did not meet the necessary psychological injuries, and that a subsequent 2006 accident was a primary factor for the reported impairments. The Court dismissed the appeal and the judicial review, holding that there were no legal errors made by the Tribunal. The adjudicator applied the correct tests, and did not improperly weigh any evidence or improperly admit hearsay evidence.

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment. She argued that the Tribunal erred in applying the “but for” causation test, and failing to properly weigh other issues that led to psychological impairment. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no basis to reversed the Tribunal. The adjudicator carefully considered the evidence relating to psychological impairment and concluded that the claimant failed to prove that she had sufficiently reduced impairment in three spheres of function. Further, the adjudicator’s conclusion that the accident was not a necessary cause of the claimant’s condition was fact driven, and was based on the evidence before the Tribunal.