The claimant was the operator of a vac-truck that responded to a fatal tractor-trailer collision. The claimant alleged that, as a result of cleaning up the spilled substances resulting from the accident and seeing the deceased bodies, he suffered from both physical and psychological injuries. The Tribunal denied the claim on the grounds that it did not meet the definition of an “accident”. The claimant filed for Reconsideration. In her decision, Adjudicator Lester noted that the environmental spill would be considered an intervening act, and not part of the “ordinary course of things” in relation to the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Furthermore, the tractor trailer itself did not directly cause the claimant’s injuries. It collided with another vehicle causing a chemical spill and fatality, which ultimately led to the claimant’s injuries as the claimant’s job was to clean up chemical spills outside of his vehicle. The chemical spill and deceased body were not as a result of the use or operation of a vehicle, but as a result of a collision. Adjudicator Lester denied the Reconsideration request.
