Category: LAT Rules

Applicant v. The Personal Insurance Company (16-000338)

The claimant sought reconsideration regarding the exclusion of audio evidence obtained by the claimant during an IE. The Executive Chair held that the adjudicator had not acted outside his jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness. The request was denied.

N.P.M.T. v. State Farm Insurance Company (16-002709)

The claimant withdrew the LAT application at the Case Conference. The insurer objected and sought costs. Adjudicator Treksler stated that the mere withdrawal of an application will “rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a costs order.” The claimant’s application and subsequent withdrawal did not rise to the level required in Rule 19.1 to warrant costs.

J.B. v. Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. (16-000766)

The claimant sought entitlement to three medical benefits. As a preliminary issue, the insurer sought exclusion of the claimant’s submissions due to late filing. Adjudicator Treksler held that a large and liberal interpretation of Rule 3.1 allowed the late filing of submissions in this case. The adjudicator found the disputed treatment plans reasonable and necessary.

S.G. v. The Personal Insurance Company (16-000338)

The claimant sought to admit an audio recording he made during an IE assessment. The insurer objected to the audio recording being entered as evidence. Adjudicator Lester relied upon the section 15 of the SPPA in establishing her authority to determine what evidence to admit at the hearing. She concluded that the audio recording was not relevant to the issues in dispute and was therefore not admitted into evidence.

A.A. v. State Farm (16-000448)

The claimant sought a waiver of the $100 LAT filing fee in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act. The LAT held that the Administration of Justice Act did not apply to Tribunals, and, even if it did, the claimant had not provided a sufficient factual basis for granting a fee waiver.