The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike several of the respondent's expert reports, arguing the Notices of Examination did not comply with s. 44(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The applicant also sought a finding that his income replacement benefit was improperly denied under s. 37(4).
The adjudicator found that some of the Notices of Examination were deficient for failing to provide sufficient medical reasons or assessor qualifications.
However, to balance consumer protection with procedural fairness, only the reports relating to the post-104 week period were struck, as the respondent could still arrange new assessments for that period.
The remaining reports were allowed into the record, with their weight to be determined at the hearing.
The adjudicator also found the respondent's denial letter for the income replacement benefit was compliant with s. 37(4), as it clearly referenced the medical report relied upon.
A new issue regarding medical marijuana was added to the dispute on consent.
