RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
File: 18-003316/AABS
Case Name: P.M. and TD Insurance Company
For the Applicant: Jaspal Brar, Grillone Bekriaris
For the Respondent: Patrick Baker, Zarek Taylor Grossman Habrahan LLP
Overview
1This request for reconsideration arises from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) denying that the applicant’s injuries fall outside the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”) and medical benefits. The applicants now ask that I reconsider the Tribunal’s order.
2Pursuant to her authority under s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, the Executive Chair delegated to me her responsibility to decide this matter.
3As explained below, I deny this request for reconsideration.
Facts
4The applicant filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on August 15, 2019 in respect of a decision dated July 24, 2019.
5The applicant applied to the Tribunal on the issues of the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”), and medical and rehabilitation benefits. The adjudicator determined the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline and therefore limited to $3500 worth of treatment. As a result, the treatment plans were denied.
6The applicant requests the decision be reconsidered as the applicant is claiming there is new evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, that could not have been obtained and would likely have changed the result.
Decision and Reasons
7In review of the materials provided by the applicant, the applicant is claiming that the new evidence that could not have reasonably obtained prior to the hearing are clinical notes and records from Dr. Baath. The applicant is claiming the new information is in relation to a July 10, 2019 doctor’s appointment where the doctor advised the applicant to take four weeks off work due to neck pain resulting from the car accident. In the Tribunal’s decision, the adjudicator considered the applicant’s neck impairments and still determined that the applicant was subject to the MIG.
8With a request for reconsideration parties requesting reconsideration should be providing the Tribunal with their submissions and evidence. In this case we do not have the evidence, submissions of the applicant explaining why the records could not have been obtained earlier or how it may change the decision.
9On that basis, the request for reconsideration is denied.
Jonathan Batty Associate Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: September 5, 2019