The claimant failed to attend an examination under oath. The insurer argued that the claimant’s entitlement to accident benefits was suspended. The claimant argued that the examination under oath was not properly scheduled. Adjudicator Norris held that the examination under oath was properly scheduled. He reasoned that an examination under oath can be requested after a LAT application is submitted. He also reasoned that the examination under oath notice complied with the requirements of section 33. Finally, Adjudicator Norris concluded that the LAT application would not be stayed, but that the claimant’s entitlement to benefits was suspended until he participated in an examination under oath.
