The claimant was involved in an accident on October 19, 2016, and applied for accident benefits. The dispute involved the insurer denying catastrophic impairment under criterion 8, based on the s. 44 psychiatry IE of Dr. Sivasubramanian, and involved a 7-day videoconference hearing. Initially, Dr. Sivasubramanian had opined that the claimant suffered 2 Class 4 Marked Impairments; however, after viewing surveillance evidence, Dr. Sivasubramanian changed his opinion, and opined that the claimant suffered, at most, a Class 1 Mild Impairment in all domains. The matter was complicated by the fact that the claimant already had severe pre-existing psychological issues prior to the MVA, was assaulted immediately after the MVA, and was involved in a second MVA in 2021. After the second accident, the claimant reported he was “fully functioning and in good health” prior to this event. The claimant argued that the subject accident caused all of his impairments, worsened all of his psychological issues, and rendered him unable to function. In order to determine if the claimant’s issues were as a result of the subject accident, Adjudicator Hines reviewed the evidence and applied the “but for” test. Adjudicator Hines noted that the claimant’s pre-accident records were quite clear that he had numerous severe issues prior the subject accident, including trauma over being kidnapped and tortured in Iraq, and he appeared to have limited functionality. The claimant was also accepted for ODSP just two months prior to the index accident and had at least moderate restrictions to all of spheres of function. Furthermore, Adjudicator Hines did not find the claimant to be a credible witness. When examined, the claimant would often claim he “did not know” or “could not remember” key evidence. He denied that the person on surveillance was him and claimed it was his brother; however, Adjudicator Hines noted that all three of the claimant’s brothers were deceased and had all passed away prior to the surveillance being taken. Furthermore, the claimant’s assessors were not in receipt of the ODSP file showing severe impairments pre-accident, which rendered their CAT opinions unreliable. Based on the above, Adjudicator Hines accepted Dr. Sivasubramanian’s opinion that the claimant had, at most, mild impairments to his functioning as a result of the subject accident and did not satisfy the criteria for catastrophic impairment. The claim was dismissed
