The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s denial of home modifications. The primary basis for the denial was that the modifications proposed were to the claimant’s daughter’s home, rather than the condo that the claimant lived in at the time of the accident. The Court allowed the appeal and ordered the insurer to fund the home modifications. The Court ruled that an “existing home” does not need to be the home a person lived in at the time of the accident, and can include a property that a person has moved to after the accident and is living in on a full time basis.
