Alon Rooz

The applicants, who were injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought to have their two separate applications for arbitration combined pursuant to Rule 30 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer supported the combination to save on assessment expenses.

The arbitrator declined to combine the applications, finding that the legislative scheme contemplates a user-pay system for dispute resolution, and combining substantive, distinct claims would unfairly shift the financial burden to the general market share assessment rather than the specific users of the system.

The applicants, husband and wife, were injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed separate applications for arbitration against their insurer.

The Commission's case administrator improperly combined the applications without authority or notice.

At the pre-hearing discussion, the arbitrator ruled the administrative combination invalid but ordered the matters to be heard at the same time due to overlapping issues and identical witnesses, while remaining registered as separate proceedings pending further submissions on combining them.