At issue before the Tribunal was whether the claimant submitted appropriate proof of the services he incurred, and whether he established that his wife, who had provided his care, had sustained economic loss as a result. It was undisputed that the claimant was entitled to attendant care directly following the accident. Vice-Chair McGee found that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to ACBs for the relevant time period. The claimant applied to the LAT for entitlement to ACBs. As the claimant had failed to establish that her partner had suffered monthly economic loss, she had not met her onus in proving that she incurred the claimed attendant care services, and the claim was dismissed.
Vice Chair McGee noted that while she was sensitive to the impact the accident had likely had on the claimant and her partner, the SABS reflected a clear intention on the part of the legislature to compensate non-professional attendant care providers only up to the amount of the economic loss. Upon review of the partner’s income and employment documentation, Vice Chair McGee found no marked difference her pre-accident and post-accident hours of work and earnings. The claimant submitted that her partner sustained an economic loss of $778.00 per month while providing attendant care services, as the partner had reduced her work scheduled by one 8-hour shift per week to accommodate the claimant’s care needs.
At issue in the hearing was whether the claimant: (a) had proven that she incurred expenses for attendant care, and (b) the service provider sustained an economic loss due to providing attendant care services. The claimant sought entitlement to attendant care benefits in the amount of $3,079.00 per month. 44 assessors with all the clinical notes and records of the claimant did not meet the threshold for granting an award, and the claim for a special award was dismissed. Finally, Adjudicator Grant found that the insurer’s failure to provide s. As such, Adjudicator Grant found that the claimant had failed to prove that she incurred any ACBs, and she was not entitled to payment of ACBs. The claimant did not have the financial means to pay for attendant care services. She was not entitled to a language pathology assessment. Adjudicator Grant found that the claimant was entitled to post-104 IRBs and a neuropsychological cognitive assessment. 44 post-104 IRB reports compelling, as the opinions were provided individually and there was no consideration of the combined impact of the claimant’s impairments on her ability to return to work. She received long-term disability benefits until 2020 (when she received an advance buyout of her long-term disability benefits) and CPP Disability benefits from 2017 to 2020. Her injuries were found to include post-concussion syndrome and chronic pain. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2016. The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to the cost of examinations, post-104 IRBs, ACBs, and a special award. Finally, the claimant had no control or power to produce the records of the housekeeper, and could therefore not be ordered to produce the records. That finding was an error and not supported by any evidence, nor argued by either party. Second, the Tribunal believed that the housekeeping provider was the spouse of the claimant. To the contrary, the housekeeper stated that she was acting in the course of employment though a company that existed prior to the claimant’s accident. The productions were ordered produced on the belief that an economic loss was being advanced by the claimant and service provider.
First, the Tribunal erred in its understanding of the housekeeping claim. The Court explained that even though the production order was interlocutory, the order was “fatally flawed” and had to be set aside. The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the order. The claimant appealed a production order made by the Tribunal for him to produce personal and corporate income tax records from his housekeeping provider.
0 kommentar(er)
