The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 9, 2006 (the “2006 accident”). He brought an application seeking a CAT designation due to a mental or behavioral disorder. The insurer argued that the claimant did not suffer from a catastrophic impairment and also that his alleged injuries arose from a previous motor vehicle accident in 2002 (the “2002 accident”). At the outset of the hearing, the claimant moved to call a witness. The LAT held that the claimant was not entitled to call the witness because he had not been included in the witness list outlined in the case conference Order. The LAT permitted the claimant’s requested relief because he had substituted for a witness who had been listed in the case conference Order, there was sufficient time in the hearing schedule, and because the claimant had notified the insurer of his intention to call the witness. With respect to the issue of CAT, the LAT found that the claimant had not suffered a catastrophic impairment because he did not suffer a marked impairment in any of the four areas of function. The LAT also found that the claimant’s injuries did not arise from the 2006 accident because he had advised three of his treating practitioners in 2007 that his pain and psychological injuries arose from the 2002 accident and had not been affected by the 2006 accident. The LAT further noted that the claimant had commenced his application in May 2012, six years after the 2006 accident and only two months after the claimant was involved in a motorcycle accident in 2012, in which he sustained a concussion. The claimant’s application was dismissed.
Menu