The claimant filed a LAT Application disputing entitlement to NEBs, interest, and a special award. The claimant testified that although she was able to do things, she was not able to totally engage in all of her pre-accident activities due to pain. For example, the claimant noted that she had “some” limitations with respect to dressing herself, but could do so without help. She had not returned to the gym due to pain, and her pre-accident walking routine of 5-6 days a week had been limited to 1-2 days a week with a reduced tolerance. The claimant was self-employed prior to the accident and would work 3-5 hours a day, but post-accident, only worked 1-2 hours a day and now relied on her husband and daughters to distribute promotional flyers for her. While she did currently attend college, she stated that she had now fallen behind due to accident-related concentration issues. The claimant relied on various medical evidence, including diagnostic studies showing a partial thickness tear of the left shoulder and various s. 25 reports. Vice-Chair Campbell noted that while the medical evidence did show that the claimant had suffered some difficulty in her daily routines, some moreso than others, the overal evidence and testimony of the claimant did not show that she was unable to engage in “substantially all” of her pre-accident activities, nor was she continuously prevented in engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities as she continued to work, attend school, and was capable of self-care. Although she did demonstrate some restrictions, including reduced participation in activies and resigning from her pre-accident role at her church, this did not meet the strict NEB test. The Application was dismissed.
Menu