Dr. Surla

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him income replacement benefits and a treatment plan.

He argued the adjudicator misapprehended expert evidence, breached procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law regarding causation and expert qualifications.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness, noting the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed, as the applicant's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were caused by a subsequent disc herniation rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries from the accident were soft tissue injuries that had substantially healed before the disc herniation occurred.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon over the applicant's experts, concluding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological impairments were caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, with no entitlement to benefits, an award, or interest.