Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP is pleased to provide this online resource to our clients. Below is a searchable database of the publicly released decisions from the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Assembled by the accident benefits group, the decisions are reviewed, briefly summarized, and categorized for easy access.
As of March 2020, we will not include any further decisions focused solely on the Minor Injury Guideline or treatment plans, unless the case may have broader applicability.
The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs, removal from the MIG, and medical benefits. Adjudicator Chakravarti held that the claimant failed to prove that he did not suffer a non-minor injury. The claimant's testimony was not credible, and there was lack of evidence that he sustained any impairment as a result of the accident. The claim...
The claimant sought an order from the case conference adjudicator that his decision not to strike the insurer's preliminary issue was biased and requested that the adjudicator recuse himself. Adjudicator Mazerolle refused the request. He explained that his decision was based on the written submissions of both parties and that a reasonable person would not...
The claimant sought reconsideration of a motion order denying the request to vary the hearing timetable. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration because it was not related to a final order.
The insurer asked for an extension of time to serve a motion record in relation to the claimant's motion to exclude certain evidence from an upcoming hearing. Adjudicator Paluch granted the extension and vacated the scheduled hearing dates in order for the motion to be heard. He wrote that the insurer inadvertently failed to serve...
The claimant sought entitlement to five treatment plans. In addition to arguing that they treatment was reasonable and necessary, the claimant also argued that the insurer's denials of three medical benefits did not comply with section 38(8) of the SABS. Adjudicator Grant found that the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary due to the...
The claimant sought entitlement to over $24,000 in catastrophic impairment rebuttal reports. The insurer argued that dispute was statute barred. Adjudicator Grant held that catastrophic impairment assessments are not "benefits" and therefore not subject to the two year limitation period. Adjudicator Grant concluded that the proposed assessments were reasonable and necessary, and were therefore payable....
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three medical benefits. Adjudicator Reilly held that the claimant sustained soft tissue injuries falling within the definition of "minor injury". The claimant failed to provide any medical evidence from his family physician disputing the diagnoses of the IE assessors.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's refusal to re-open her application for entitlement to certain psychological services. The claimant and the insurer had agreed to resolve entitlement to proposed psychological services that were proposed. The services proposed were to be provided by a psychologist at the Guideline rates. The claimant then incurred the treatment...
The claimant sought entitlement to over $15,000 for multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessments. The insurer denied the assessments because the claimant had exhausted her medical benefits limits. Adjudicator Victor held that the cost of catastrophic impairment assessments did not fall within the medical benefits limits. She held that the claimant had to prove that each assessment...
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that he was not entitled to NEBs. He argued, among other things, that the Tribunal's refusal to allow closing arguments violated the rules of natural justice. Vice Chair Jovanovic agreed that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by not allowing closing submissions. The Tribunal could...
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that he was not entitled to NEBs. He argued, among other things, that the Tribunal's refusal to allow closing arguments violated the rules of natural justice. Vice Chair Jovanovic agreed that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice by not allowing closing submissions. The Tribunal could...
The claimant sought entitlement to medical marijuana and the cost of an assessment. Adjudicator Grant awarded both claims. He accepted that medical marijuana was a superior reliever of pain, anxiety and depression for the claimant, and that it was being recommended by the claimant's family physician.
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's award of an orthopaedic assessment. Vice Chair Mather granted the reconsideration and denied the claimed assessment. She held that the Tribunal made a significant error of law in concluding that section 38(8) required a "clear and unequivocal" denial of the goods and services it was not agreeing to...
The claimant sought entitlement to two treatment plans. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary. The claimant's family physician did not support the need for further physical therapy and the IE assessor concluded that the claimant had met maximum medical recovery. The psychological assessment also was not reasonable because the...
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to four treatment plans for physical therapy. As a preliminary matter, the insurer sought to admit as evidence two addendum report authored after the production deadline. Adjudicator Harper refused to admit the addendum reports, reasoning that they could have been obtained much earlier, since the records...
The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs. Adjudicator Lake concluded that the claimant did not meet the "complete inability" test. The claimant argued that his pre-existing cerebral palsy combined with the accident related injuries satisfied the test. Adjudicator Lake held that the claimant continued to engage in most of his pre-accident activities, including driving, sledge hockey,...
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's award psychological treatment and a psychological assessment, and the calculation of interest. Adjudicator Hines dismissed the reconsideration requests for the treatment plan and assessment, concluding that the Tribunal did not make an error in weighing the evidence. Adjudicator Hines granted the reconsideration in terms of interest, holding that...
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that he was barred from proceeding with his claim due to IE Non-Attendance. He argued that he was unable to attend due to mental and physical disabilities. Vice Chair Trojek dismissed the reconsideration. She found no support for the claimant's position that the Tribunal did not consider...
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that the claimant's injuries fell within the MIG and the denial of three treatment plans. Following the Tribunal's decision, the insurer removed the claimant from the MIG. The claimant argued that this was new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier. Adjudicator Grieves granted the...
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to dismiss all of his claims. Adjudicator Watt dismissed the reconsideration request. He held that the claimant had failed to provide written submissions to the Tribunal as ordered by the hearing adjudicator; that the surveillance considered by the Tribunal was not improper; that the Tribunal considered the...
The claimant sought entitlement to over $22,000 for multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessments. The insurer had approved a total of $7,000. The claimant disputed entitlement to the remainder. Adjudicator Parish approved entitlement to an executive summary and the cost of the OCF-19, but denied the remainder. She held that the remaining assessments were duplicative of the...