The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she was not entitled to dispute benefits because she did not attend a psychiatric IE. Prior to this appeal, the claimant attended the IE and commenced a new LAT application. Nevertheless, the claimant continued with the appeal arguing that the LAT erred in barring the dispute, and in failing to provide procedural fairness. The Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the LAT did not make any legal error in barring the dispute, and that any arguments relating to factual errors were not proper for the Court to consider on appeal. The Court also found there was no lack of procedural fairness. The claimant’s arguments that limitations defence might now apply to the treatment plans in dispute was an indirect challenge to the claims being made rather than the Tribunal hearing.
