The claimant failed to attend two LAT Cases Conferences, and the insurer sought to have the matter dismissed. Adjudicator Purdy dismissed the matter as abandoned.
Menu
Category: LAT Rules
The insurer sought an adjournment of the LAT hearing due to receipt of productions from the claimant late in the process. Adjudicator Hunter granted the adjournment, and also ordered the claimant to produce a record of her passport, which was relevant to her travel activities. No costs were awarded in relation to the late productions.
The claim for various medical benefits and MIG removal was dismissed because the claimant did not participate in the written hearing. Adjudicator Marzinotto held that the insurer did not need to bring a formal notice for a dismissal because the parties had agreed to a written hearing to be held March 14, 2017. Rather, the matter was dismissed because the claimant had presented no evidence in support of his claim.
The claimant sought entitlement to an in-home assessment and assistive devices. After weighing the evidence, Adjudicator Pay found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary. Although the insurer raised objections to the Reply submissions of the claimant, Adjudicator Pay stated: “Because these submissions of the applicant were not relevant to the determination of the dispute, I did not consider them. The issues in dispute focused on whether or not the two treatment plans were reasonable and necessary. In determining these issues, I considered the medical evidence. I did not consider telephone records or emails by the assessors. I also disregarded the allegation regarding production issues and the accusation of errors, misinterpretation and misleading facts. As a result, I do not need to consider the request to strike these portions of the applicant’s submissions, or to provide an opportunity to respond.”
The claimant had already previously adjourned two case conferences due to a death in the family and medical reasons. A preliminary issue hearing was scheduled; however, it was subsequently withdrawn by the insurer and the matter was set to proceed to a hearing. The claimant sought to adjourn a written hearing, so she could undergo an assessment. The insurer contested the adjournment. Vice Chair Trojek was critical of the claimant’s actions. However, the funeral and medical calamities the claimant experienced were “exceptional and uncontemplated circumstances.” To deny an adjournment would unduly prejudice the claimant.
Adjudicator Pay was asked to exclude a report by Dr. Ogilvie-Harris that was served two days before the hearing date. Adjudicator Pay allowed the submission of this late report as it was relevant and likely necessary to the determination of the issues in dispute. However, she extended the timelines for the submission of the insurer’s reply materials by an additional 30 days.
The claimant was involved in two accidents and sustained a heart attack months after the second accident. A treatment plan for assistive devices was denied by the insurer with the assistance of a GP IE report. The insurer objected to the inclusion of documents not disclosed 10 days before the service and filing of written submissions, pursuant to LAT Rule 9. Adjudicator Theoharis ruled that since the insurer’s response submissions afforded it 10 days, the materials were properly disclosed. On the merits, Adjudicator Theoharis determined that the treatment plan for assistive devices was reasonable and necessary and that the treatment undertaken by the claimant had to be cognizant of the heart condition suffered afterwards.
The insurer sought an adjournment of an oral hearing because two of its witnesses would be out of the country; the claimant’s counsel consented to the adjournment. Nevertheless, Adjudicator Trojek rejected the request for an adjournment, reasoning that the request was not timely. The insurer made the request only 23 days before the hearing and more than 104 days after the case conference. No explanation was provided as to why the insurer only learned of the IE assessors absence so close to the hearing date.
The claimant did not attend the hearing. Accordingly, the claims were dismissed.
The accident involved two people, each with claims. The insurer requested that the matter be combined. The claimants did not consent. The two hearings shared only one common witness. Vice Chair Trojek denied the request for the combination of hearings. Under Rule 20.5 Vice Chair Trojek did not find any value in terms of “fairness, efficacy, or cost effectiveness” in having the matters combined. Privacy rights were also cited.