The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment. The claimant argued that the hearing was procedurally unfair and that the Tribunal applied the wrong test for causation. Adjudicator Neilson dismissed the reconsideration. She found that the claimant was aware of the insurer’s position regarding causation, and as such, the hearing was procedurally fair. She also concluded that the “but for” test was the appropriate test to apply on the facts of this case. In the alternative, the adjudicator found that the material contribution test would not have changed the result because she was not satisfied that there was a nexus between the accident injuries and the subsequent fall that caused additional injuries.
