Dr. Padda

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the claimant's psychological injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline and approved a $2,200 psychological assessment.

The insurer argued the adjudicator erred in law and breached procedural fairness by relying on the claimant's psychologist, who had only been licensed for three months and did not comply with the Tribunal's expert witness rules.

The Vice-Chair denied the reconsideration, applying the Westerhof framework to find that the claimant's psychologist was a participant expert, not a litigation expert, and thus exempt from the strict expert rules.

The Vice-Chair concluded the adjudicator made no material errors of law or fact and reasonably exercised her discretion in weighing the competing psychological evidence.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The respondent insurer deemed the injuries to fall within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a $2,200 psychological assessment.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including adjustment disorder and somatic symptom disorder, fell outside the definition of a minor injury.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's assessor, noting the insurer's assessor discounted moderate impairment test results without reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the psychological assessment with interest, but declined to order an award for unreasonably withheld payments.