Print
 

 Volume. 7 Issue. 3 – January 25, 2023


This week the Tribunal considers two accidents wherein vehicles struck houses with sufficient force so as to end up inside the house itself. In ‘Truck Impact Destroying Living/Dining Room Not “Accident”’, the Applicant contended that witnessing her kitchen and dining rooms destroyed by a vehicle intrusion caused significant psychological harm.

Similarly, in ‘Psychological Trauma Not “Accidental”’ the Applicant contended having sustained psychological trauma, after witnessing a vehicle post collision in a nearby house being involved in a natural gas explosion/file, destroying multiple houses.


Need help finding cases? Reach out to our Live Chat Experts for guided searches!



Kitchen/Dining Room Destruction Following Impact Not “Accident”

Truck Impact Destroying Living/Dining Room Not “Accident” – In 21-012279 v CAA, the Applicant Howes was asleep in her home, when she was awakened after she alleged that a large mirror fell down on her. She discovered after going downstairs that a truck had driven into her home, destroying her entire dining room and kitchen.

While Howes alleges having been physically injured by the mirror falling off of the wall due to the force of the truck’s collision into the house, she submitted that her more significant injuries were of a psychological nature. The trauma from the accident was said to have led to multiple suicide attempts, with diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, panic disorder and agoraphobia, and major depressive disorder (single episode) with anxious distress. Her doctor also diagnosed her with chronic pain and headaches.

The Tribunal however was not persuaded by arguments contending there to have been a physical injury, as the clinical notes do not reflect any complaints related to the mirror falling on her. Further, as for the diagnosis of chronic pain, the evidence confirmed same as a pre-existing condition. Turning next to the psychological impairments, Tribunal precedents, confirmed by the Court, have confirmed that “a psychological impairment resulting from the aftermath of an accident is not sufficient to support a finding that it arose from the use or operation of a vehicle, when the collision had already occurred prior to the applicant being psychologically impaired.” While acknowledging this to have been “a very scary and traumatizing experience for the applicant”, Howes nonetheless did not see the accident, only the immediate aftermath of same. Therefore, Howes was not involved in an “accident” in accordance with the Schedule.



Natural Gas Explosion Post Collision Not “Accident”

Psychological Trauma Not “Accidental” – In 21-008634 v Intact, the Applicant Gray was in her house when a vehicle struck the house a few doors down. Upon venturing out to see what had happened, she saw that the vehicle was inside the house itself, however she was advised by police to go back “five houses”. She was a few houses down the road when there was a natural gas explosion involving the vehicle, with the explosion and resulting fire destroying multiple houses. Gray alleged that she sustained psychological impairments as a result of the incident. However, the Tribunal found that Gray did not see the accident, witnessing only the immediate aftermath.

While this was recognized as an unexpected and traumatizing experience, jurisprudence nonetheless, as noted in the case above, confirms that Intact “should not be responsible for any impairments that arise out of the aftermath of an accident that has already occurred.” The vehicle so involved was “no longer in use and operation by the time the applicant’s impairments were established. Therefore, she cannot be found to have been in an automobile accident.” Further, reference to the available records, aside from the OCF-3, confirmed there to be “nothing else in the evidence such as clinical notes and records or referrals to a psychiatrist that would substantiate the applicant’s position that she sustained an impairment as a direct result of the accident.”



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

April 30, 2025: Tribunal Confirms Four Class 4 Marked Impairments

CAT

April 28, 2025: MIG Not Conceded Despite Approved CAT Assessments

MIG

April 23, 2025: Court Reverses Tribunal’s Unreasonable Adjournment Refusal

Adjournment, CAT, Divisional Court

April 21, 2025: MIG Escape on Fractured Tooth 15 Months Later

MIG

April 16, 2025: Deficient Notice Renders NEB Payable

NEB

April 14, 2025: MIG Valid Medical Reason

MIG

April 9, 2025: Bus Travelling Over Elevated Manhole Cover Satisfies “Collision”

Definition Accident

April 7, 2025: Four OCF 18’s Payable Despite MIG Hold

MIG

March 26, 2025: Post 104 IRB Ongoing for Non-CAT

CAT, IRB

March 24, 2025: 30% Award for Failure to Review CNRs Overturned on Reconsideration

MIG

March 19, 2025: Yes to CAT, No to Post 104 IRB

CAT, IRB

March 17, 2025: Imaging Report Alone Insufficient to Establish Causation

MIG

March 12, 2025: Tribunal Rules Again on Matter Referred Back by the Court

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

March 10, 2025: Res Judicata Waived on New Evidence

MIG

March 5, 2025: No Criterion 8 CAT as Physical Pain the Limiting Factor

CAT

March 3, 2025: Cause of Shoulder Tear Degenerative or MVA Related?

MIG

February 26, 2025: NEB Payable to 104 Week Mark Due to Technical Breaches

NEB

February 24, 2025: Doctor Not Required to Provide Diagnosis

MIG

February 19, 2025: Court Sets Aside Tribunal S.32 Notice Decision

Breaking News, Div Court, Limitation Period

February 12, 2025: Post 104 IRB Despite Employment & No CAT As Only Two Marked Impairments

CAT, IRB

February 10, 2025: GP Evidence Preferred over IE Regarding Concussion

MIG

February 5, 2025: No Election Required Despite Endorsement of IRB & NEB

Procedure, SABS

January 27, 2025: CNR’s + Imaging Determinative of Complete Shoulder Tear

MIG

January 22, 2025: Court of Appeal Upholds Divisional Court Decision

Divisional Court, NEB, Reconsideration

January 20, 2025: GP’s Diagnosis of “Head Injury” Prevails

MIG

January 15, 2025: Tribunal Accepts Neither Expert in Awarding Pre But Not Post 104 IRB

IRB

January 13, 2025: A Brain Contusion is Not Enough for a Concussion Diagnosis

MIG

January 9, 2025: Court Awards $69K in Costs for Apparent Miscarriage of Justice

Divisional Court,Costs

January 6, 2025: Corroborative Evidence Not Necessarily Required in Psych Diagnoses

MIG

December 18, 2024: Applicant Successful in CAT Case Where Respondent’s Expert Unavailable

CAT

December 16, 2024: Applicants Lose on Flawed Interpretation of the Schedule

MIG

December 11, 2024: Court Sends Paraplegic Matter Back to Tribunal re “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court, Reconsiderations

December 9, 2024: Pre-Existing Conditions MIG Escapes?

MIG

December 4, 2024: Court Remits $770K Award Worthy Matter Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

December 2, 2024: GP Questionnaire Does Not Trigger MIG Escape on Pre Existing

MIG

November 27, 2024: Court Remits $200K Award Worthy Matters Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

November 25, 2024: Pre-Screen Not Psychological Diagnosis

MIG

November 20, 2024: IE Not Reasonable or Necessary – No to CAT & IRB

CAT, IRB, Procedure

November 18, 2024: No Evidence Pre-Existing Conditions Prevent MMR

MIG

November 13, 2024: Applicant’s Explanation for Delayed Application Found Reasonable

Procedure

November 11, 2024: GP Concussion Diagnosis Accepted as Legitimate

MIG

November 6, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT

November 4, 2024: Submissions Do Not = Evidence

MIG

October 30, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT, Divisional Court

October 28, 2024: IE Fails to Explain Lack of Diagnosis

MIG

October 23, 2024: Loose Lid Unexpected "Accident"

Definition Accident

October 21, 2024: Dental Work Required Not Caused by MVA

MIG

October 7, 2024: Continuity of Complaints Confirm Chronic Pain

MIG

October 2, 2024: All Items in Dispute Deemed Incurred

Treatment Plans

September 30, 2024: Ignoring Medical Evidence Proves Award Worthy

MIG