The claimant asked for a reconsideration of part of the Tribunal’s decision regarding the denial of an orthopaedic assessment. Vice Chair Farlam was satisfied that the decision did not contain any errors of law or fact. Having accepted some of the evidence in the orthopaedic assessment did not obligate the adjudicator to find that the cost of it was reasonable and necessary. Vice Chair Farlam held that there was a distinction between finding that the claimant sustained the impairments in question apart from finding that proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary. The claimant’s suggestion that the orthopaedic assessment was a key part of the Decision which allowed three other treatment plans to be awarded, and that but for the orthopaedic assessment the decision would not have been reached, was speculation and did not establish ground for reconsideration. The claimant also argued that the adjudicator made a significant error of law or fact in failing to find that she was entitled to the cost of the orthopaedic assessment because she never received a denial notice from the insurer. However, the evidence before the Vice Chair was that the claimant did receive an appropriate denial and the date of denial of all treatment plans and examinations were agreed upon prior to the hearing. The claimant also suggested that a negative inference should be drawn against the insurer for not providing the accident benefits file and that the notice of examination was deficient. Vice Chair Farlam held that reconsideration was not an opportunity to raise new and different arguments not made at the hearing. The reconsideration was dismissed.
