The claimant applied to the LAT disputing entitlement to NEBs, physiotherapy services, a chronic pain assessment and MIG determination and a special award. The insurer a preliminary issue that the claimant was barred from litigating his entitlement to NEBs for failure to attend an IE to address the benefit. Belair also sought costs. Adjudicator Chakravarti noted that the claimant failed to attend the scheduled IE on two occasions, both without reasonable explanation; furthermore, he failed to attend the Case Conference. In his written materials, the claimant withdrew his claims for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment and a MIG determination, leaving only a claim for NEBs and a special award in dispute. The claimant argued that his non-attendance was “”due to inadvertence”” and was not intentional, but he did not submit a reasonable explanation or provide evidence as to why this occurred twice. Secondly, the claimant argued that the IE was not reasonable or necessary as the insurer had already complete an OT report and a psychology paper review in regard to NEBs, and thus there was no prejudice to the insurer for non-attendance. Adjudicator Chakravarti ruled in the insurer’s favour, noting that lack of prejudice to the insurer is not an excuse for non-compliance with section 44 of the SABS. Adjudicator Chakravarti rejected the claimant’s request to allow him to stay the proceeding and allow him to attend the examination, noting the claimant’s past pattern of behaviour, lack of reasonable explanation and lack of assurance that he would attend, left the parties in the same position as they had started. The claimant was barred from pursuing entitlement to NEBs.
Menu