The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired.
She argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent to cross-examine its own expert neurologist and by rejecting the expert's 5% whole person impairment rating for headaches without notice.
She also argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence regarding her incontinence.
The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant had notice of the respondent's challenges to the expert's report, the Tribunal was entitled to reject ratings not supported by the AMA Guides, and the evidence supported the finding that there was no post-accident exacerbation of incontinence.
