Dr. Abdalla Shamisa

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she was not involved in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule when her pre-existing spinal AVM or aneurysm ruptured, causing paraplegia.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent's expert to provide new opinion evidence at the hearing and erred in its causation analysis.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness as the expert's hearing evidence flowed from his reports and was subject to cross-examination.

The adjudicator also found no errors of fact or law in the Tribunal's intervening act and dominant feature analyses, concluding the pre-existing condition, not the vehicle, was the dominant feature of the injury.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after suffering lower limb paraplegia following a car ride where the driver engaged in aggressive driving to avoid a group of motorcyclists.

The applicant argued the stress of the incident caused a blood pressure spike that ruptured a spinal aneurysm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

Preferring the respondent's medical evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's congenital spinal arteriovenous malformation (AVM) likely ruptured spontaneously, making the AVM the dominant feature and 'but for' cause of the impairment, with the vehicle merely being the location of the injury.