The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to deny psychological treatment. Executive Chair Lamoureux rejected the reconsideration request. She held that all of the grounds raised by the claimant were essentially a re-weighing of facts of findings made by the Tribunal.
This is a reconsideration decision under LAT Rule 18.2(b) wherein the original decision found the claimant not entitled to claim expenses related to a trip to Disney World. Executive Chair Lamoureux noted that there were no further submissions on the part of the claimant, and it appeared the Tribunal was merely “urged to discover the error.” Although Executive Chair Lamoureux did not entirely agree with the original Adjudicator’s analysis, it was concluded that the proper interpretation of section 16 of the SABS was conducted and the same result would have occurred. Executive Chair Lamoureux interpreted section 16(3) as a provision aimed to serve a rehabilitative purpose. The trip to Disney was seen as an event meant to be enjoyed as a result of the rehabilitation process, not for, or part of, the rehabilitation of the claimant. As a result, the original decision was maintained and the expenses claimed remained denied.
The original adjudicator had awarded IRBs up to the 104 week mark, which was a future date; the weekly quantum of IRBs awarded was not analysed in the decision. The insurer appealed the adjudicator’s order related to the period and quantum of IRBs. Executive Chair Lamoureux accepted the insurer’s arguments and held that the order should be varied to remove the specified future date, and ordered a rehearing on the issue of IRB quantum.
Executive Chair Lamoureux was asked to reconsider two decisions in which the claimant was found MIG and found not entitled to NEBs. The applicant argued that “the entirety” of his evidence was “not considered at all.” Similarly, in his request for reconsideration of NEBs the applicant argued that his “evidence was not considered at all or put before the [Tribunal].” Executive Chair Lamoureux rejected both requests for reconsideration, noting that the adjudicator had considered evidence submitted by both parties, and that there was no requirement that the adjudicator mention each record or documents put before the Tribunal.
The insurer requested reconsideration of a costs award against it arising out of the failure to provide records. Executive Chair Lamoureux overturned the costs award, writing that the adjudicator’s decision was premised on incorrect facts (the dispute had been resolved at the time).
This was a reconsideration request by the insurer following a decision that the claimant sustained psychological injuries that fell outside of the MIG. Executive Chair Lamoureux held that the adjudicator had weighed all of the evidence and made clear findings. There was therefore no basis to overturn the initial decision.
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.
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision on MIG because the claimant had been removed from the MIG two years prior. The Executive Chair rescinded the adjudicator’s decision regarding MIG because it was not an issue before the Tribunal in dispute.
The insurer appealed a decision by an adjudicator that the claimant was entitled to IRBs up until a particular date in the future. The Executive Chair held that the adjudicator made an error of law by setting an end date for the reinstated IRBs. An insurer has an ongoing obligation to adjust a file, and by setting an end-date, the Order potentially fettered the insurer’s ability to adjust the claimant’s file.
The insurer appealed a decision by an adjudicator that the claimant was entitled to IRBs up until a particular date in the future. The Executive Chair held that the adjudicator made an error of law by setting an end date for the reinstated IRBs. An insurer has an ongoing obligation to adjust a file, and by setting an end-date, the Order potentially fettered the insurer’s ability to adjust the claimant’s file.
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