The claimant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits. The insurer asserted the claimant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life. Adjudicator Cezary Paluch, on review of the medical evidence, as well as testimony from the claimant, determined that the claimant met the disability test for non-earner benefits. In doing so, the claimant’s main ADLs were identified and evaluated. Although not specified in the application before the LAT, Adjudicator Paluch awarded interest on the overdue non-earner benefit payment.
The claimant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits. The insurer resisted the claim and relied on medical reports as well as a statement from the claimant. Adjudicator Deborah Neilson reviewed the medical evidence and distilled the claimant’s pre- and post-accident activities of daily living. On review, it was held the claimant was completely disabled from performing the identified tasks. Non-earner benefits were awarded. The parties were invited to make submissions regarding interest at a later date.
The claimant sought non-earner benefits. Adjudicator Hines concluded that the claimant failed to prove that she suffered a complete inability as a result of the accident. She noted that the claimant had been involved in three earlier accidents in the past few years and had made claims for NEBs in those cases. Adjudicator Hines also had concerns with the claimant’s credibility due to inconsistencies in her testimony as compared to facts confirmed in the documentary record.
The claimant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits and a lone treatment plan. Adjudicator Rebecca Hines, on review of the medical evidence and surveillance, determined the claimant had not met the burden of proof to establish entitlement to non-earner benefits. The lone treatment plan was deemed payable as evidence did suggest the claimant was still dealing with MVA injuries.
The claimant applied for entitlement to non-earner benefits, which was rejected by the insurer. Adjudicator Treksler denied entitlement to non-earner benefits reasoning that the claimant had not submitted sufficient evidence of the activities she could no longer perform, and which activities were important to her prior to the accident. She also noted that the submission of a Disability Certificate was not sufficient on its own to support a claim for non-earner benefits.
The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs. As a preliminary issue, the claimant argued that the insurer’s late surveillance and IE reports should not be considered by the LAT. Adjudicator Sewrattan allowed the materials to be admitted. In terms of the NEB claim, Adjudicator Sewrattan concluded that the claimant had not proven entitlement because he led no evidence about the time he spent on each of his alleged pre-accident activities (he simply listed a series of activities by way of affidavit). Without knowing which activities the claimant spent more time on, Adjudicator Sewrattan was unable to determine what were “substantially all” of the claimant’s pre-accident activities.
The claimant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits. Adjudicator Theoharis dismissed the claim, reasoning that the claimant failed to demonstrate that the accident had resulted in the claimant being continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which she ordinarily engaged in before the accident. Of particular note was the claimant’s extensive pre-accident medical restrictions and disability benefits (CPP, WSIB, ODSP). Although the claimant did sustain injuries in the accident, she was still able to engage in many of the activities that were important to her prior to the accident.
The claimant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits and 11 treatment plans. On review of the medical evidence, Adjudicator Hines awarded five treatment plans. Additionally, Adjudicator Hines ruled that the mere filing of a disability certificate was insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to non-earner benefits; NEBs were denied.
The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs and removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Belanger-Hardy denied all claims. First, she held that the claimant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of the details of his pre-accident lifestyle and activities to establish his eligibility to NEBs. Second, the claimant did not adduce sufficient evidence that he sustained a non-minor injury in the accident, or that he suffered a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent maximum medical recovery under the MIG. In particular, Adjudicator Belanger-Hardy wrote that the claimant mentioning “back pain” or “backache” to his physician on one pre-accident visit did not amount to compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, nor did experiencing pre-accident cardiac conditions.
The claimant sought entitlement to non-earner and medical benefits. The insurer asserted a MIG defence. Adjudicator Truong considered the claimant’s testimony regarding her pre- and post-MVA life, which included an international flight to Norway and Sweden for approximately 2 weeks. Adjudicator Truong also reviewed surveillance footage and concluded that the claimant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life. Furthermore, on review of the medical evidence, the claimant’s injuries were said to be minor – the treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.