Dr. Parlar

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to income replacement benefits.

The insurer argued the adjudicator made errors of fact regarding the applicant's activity levels and errors of law by failing to cite case law or address section 57 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the initial conclusions were supported by medical and surveillance evidence, and that the insurer had failed to provide the requisite notice under section 57(4) to terminate benefits for non-compliance with treatment.