The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she was not entitled to ACBs, home modifications, and other various medical benefits. The claimant’s appeal was based on the procedures used by the LAT in this case. At the Case Conference, the adjudicator ordered that a joint 20 day hearing would take place, and that both the claimant and her mother’s claim would be decided based on the same evidence and witnesses, which largely overlapped. At the beginning of the hearing, the Vice Chair altered the schedule, separating the two claims and only allowing five to six days of hearing for the claimant. The Vice Chair also did not allow the claimant to enforce a subpoena to cross-examine the insurer’s OT, despite draft reports suggesting that earlier versions of the report had been changed to better support the insurer’s position. The Court held that the Tribunal had breached the claimant’s right to a procedurally fair hearing, and ordered the matter be re-heard by a new adjudicator. The Court emphasized that any hearing scheduled set in a Case Conference ought to be followed unless prior sufficient notice is given to the parties regarding a change, and that the right to cross-examine an opposing party’s expert was fundamental to the procedural fairness of the hearing.
