Dr. Raymond Zabieliaukas

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan and dismissed her motion to exclude the respondent's section 44 insurer examination reports.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by admitting late documents, misapprehending medical evidence, and failing to find that pain relief is a reasonable goal of treatment.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no jurisdictional error, breach of procedural fairness, or errors of fact or law, noting that the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to re-litigate disagreements with the original decision or the weight assigned to evidence.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $1,020 physiotherapy treatment plan, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant also brought a preliminary motion to exclude the respondent's insurer examination reports due to late production of the assessors' CVs.

The Tribunal denied the preliminary motion, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous medical evidence and relying on the respondent's s. 44 orthopedic assessment which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.