Dr. Paton

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied his claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator ignored relevant caselaw, failed to declare the Minor Injury Guideline of no force and effect, misapplied the 'but for' test for causation, and erred in preferring the respondent's psychological expert over his own.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness or errors of law.

The constitutional challenge lacked required notice, the causation test was correctly applied to find dizziness was pre-existing, and the adjudicator was entitled to prefer the in-person expert assessment over a telephone-based report containing factual errors.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying an attendant care benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erroneously decided the attendant care issue after it was withdrawn, relied improperly on hearsay evidence to make adverse credibility findings, and made factual errors regarding medical causation.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration in part, amending the decision to remove the order regarding the attendant care benefit, as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the withdrawn issue.

However, the Vice-Chair upheld the remainder of the decision, finding the evidence was properly considered for the remaining issues, the applicant had waived procedural fairness concerns by consenting to a written hearing, and the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence.