The claimant requested reconsideration of Adjudicator Boyce’s decision in which he determined that the claimant was not entitled to IRBs (among other things). Adjudicator Boyce again reviewed the submissions and evidence before him and upheld his previous decision. The claimant alleged that accepting the surveillance evidence presented by the insurer did not show psychological or emotional struggle. While Adjudicator Boyce agreed, as he had in his original decision, he noted that while video evidence did not show psychological impacts, it did show that the claimant was working at her job and doing all of the required tasks she had told independent assessors she was unable to perform; thus showing she had an ability to return to her pre-accident employment. The reconsideration was dismissed.
Menu