Jennifer Kengis

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits and an award under Regulation 664.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator breached procedural fairness, made errors of fact and law, and that a different adjudicator should hear the reconsideration to avoid an apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that adjudicators are permitted to reconsider their own decisions, there was no breach of procedural fairness, and no errors of fact or law were made that would have led to a different result.

Specifically, the applicant failed to provide evidence of his pre-accident work experience to satisfy the test under s. 6(2)(b) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week post-accident mark, claiming he was completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to disclose his pre-accident employment as a National Sales Manager to the vocational assessor.

Furthermore, medical and surveillance evidence demonstrated that the applicant retained the physical and psychological capacity to perform sedentary work similar to his undisclosed previous role.

The application for IRBs and a claim for an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.