The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s motion order that permitted the insurer to cross-examine the claimant on her affidavit. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration request because it was not a final order disposing of the dispute.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claim for IRBs was barred by the limitation period. The claimant also sought further benefits, which were not addressed in the preliminary hearing. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration request because it was not a final order disposing of the entire dispute.
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment and that she was entitled to two medical benefits for physical therapy. Adjudicator Parish rejected the reconsideration. She found that all of the insurer’s arguments essentially amounted to re-argument of the case. The Tribunal was not required to make note of every finding of every expert in its decision, nor was it required to address all case law submitted by the parties. The Tribunal’s decision to accept the opinion of the claimant’s assessors over the insurer’s assessors was not an error of law. Nor was use of the California Method for converting a GAF into WPI.
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to award IRBs. Adjudicators Parish and Maleki-Yazdi rejected the reconsideration. They held that the award of IRBs “to date and ongoing” was not outside of the jurisdiction of the LAT, and that the claimant was entitled to IRBs as long as she met the appropriate disability test. Second, they rejected the argument that classifying the claimant’s job duties as “light” was an error of mixed fact and law. The Tribunal had provided sufficient reasons for its classification of the claimant’s pre-accident job, and that reconsideration was not an opportunity to re-litigate the matter.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s denial of a chiropractic treatment plan and a psychiatric assessment, arguing that the Tribunal made an error of fact and law. Adjudicator Hans denied the reconsideration request. Regarding the chiropractic treatment plan, the Tribunal had ample evidence to come to the conclusion that it was not reasonable and necessary. Regarding the psychiatric assessment, Adjudicator Hans concluded that section 38(2) appropriately applied to bar payment because it was completed prior to the submission of the treatment plan.
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s award of one medical benefit. Adjudicator Parish rejected the reconsideration, writing that the Tribunal’s decision was based on a weighing of the evidence and the varying opinions of the experts. There was nothing in the decision suggesting that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of fairness.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s order that she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment and that she was not entitled to a chronic pain assessment. Vice Chair Lester rejected the reconsideration, holding that the Tribunal had weighed the evidence before it and had good reason to give more weight to the insurer’s assessors. The Tribunal provided an adequate explanation for this decision.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that he was not entitled to accident benefits. The claimant had applied for benefits under Quebec’s SAAQ. He later filed an application for SABS benefits when he was unhappy with the SAAQ benefits. The Tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments, stating that he was simply re-arguing the same points he had made at the preliminary hearing. The Tribunal had not breached the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, and the claimant did not identify any errors of law made by the Tribunal.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that he was not entitled to accident benefits. The claimant had applied for benefits under Quebec’s SAAQ. He later filed an application for SABS benefits when he was unhappy with the SAAQ benefits. The Tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments, stating that he was simply re-arguing the same points he had made at the preliminary hearing. The Tribunal had not breached the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, and the claimant did not identify any errors of law made by the Tribunal.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that his injuries fell within the MIG and that he was not entitled to claimed medical benefits. The issue of the MIG was accidentally included in the LAT application, and the claimant had been removed from the MIG prior to the hearing based on an IE. Adjudicator Lester held that it was an error for the Tribunal to make a decision on the MIG when it was not an issue in dispute. The error resulted in the medical benefits not being adjudicated. The hearing adjudicator was ordered seized of the matter to make a determination on whether the medical benefits were reasonable and necessary.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP