Joseph G. Falconeri

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment following an ATV accident.

She argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test, misinterpreted her mental health history, and failed to consider the accident's effect on her employment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant was improperly attempting to reweigh the evidence.

The original adjudicator properly applied the causation test, reasonably relied on the respondent's psychiatric expert regarding the applicant's pre-existing autism spectrum disorder, and was entitled to place less weight on the applicant's psychological and occupational therapy evidence because those experts lacked critical pre-accident records.

During a hearing to determine if the applicant was catastrophically impaired, the respondent objected to the applicant's expert witness testifying to matters beyond her original report, specifically a late-served rebuttal report.

The Tribunal ruled that the expert could testify to all relevant matters, including the new report.

The Tribunal found that under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, it has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence, and the probative value of the testimony outweighed any prejudice to the respondent, which could be cured by allowing cross-examination and reply evidence.