RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Robert Watt
Case Name: S. P. and Jevco Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Rami Akladios/Antonov Law firm
For the Respondent: Alexander Wilkinson/Beard Winter
OVERVIEW
1This Request for Reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter. It arises out of a decision in which the Tribunal found that the applicant is not entitled to a weekly IRB in the amount of $178.16 for the period from September 18, 2018 to date, and for medical benefits for physiotherapy services, attendant care assessment and a psychological assessment and a disability invoice.
2The applicant submits that the Tribunal has acted outside its jurisdiction, or violated the rules of natural justice, or procedural fairness and has made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.
3The applicant is seeking an order quashing the decision and ordering a rehearing on all parts of the matter regarding the preliminary and substantive issues.
4Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009,1 I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
RESULT
5The applicant's Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
6The grounds for a Request for Reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
b. The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c. The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
d. There is evidence that was not before the tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
7The ground that the applicant argues applies to this case is as follows:
a. The applicant submits that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made
Disclosure of Productions
8The applicant argues that the Tribunal's erred in taking into account: the fact that applicant failed to produce the clinical notes and records of treating physicians for the three- year period, before the accident and that the respondent asked for only a one- year period pre-accident. The Tribunal noted this in the background information but did not include this factor as part of the Tribunal's analysis that related to its decision.
9I find that there was no issue of error of law or fact relating to this issue.
Inaccurate Facts Referred to in the Decision
Applicant's Birth
10The applicant argues that the Tribunal made an error in citing that applicant's baby's date of birth on December 1, 2018, instead of July 29, 2019 and that as a result, the Tribunal erred in the analysis of the back pain that existed between December 1, 2018 and July 29, 2019.
11The applicant's pregnancy did not form any part of the Tribunal's decision on the issues in dispute. The issue of any pain i.e. neck /shoulder/ back pain that the applicant claimed to have, related to the issue of chronic pain assessment, which the Tribunal discussed in detail in paragraphs {35]-[38].
12I find that there was no issue of error of law or fact relating to this issue.
Applicant's Visits to Family doctor
13The applicant submits that the Tribunal quoted inaccurate timelines of the applicant's visits to her doctor and therefore this would lead the Tribunal to an inaccurate factual analysis of the substance. There is no discussion by the applicant as to what the inaccuracies were.
14There was one apparent inaccurate reference to date for a visit to Dr. Rammo on January 31, 2019, in the background information, which the applicant argues leads to possibly an inaccurate factual analysis. The only analysis of Dr. Rammo clinical notes was set out in para [31] of the decision which was not contradicted by the applicant.
15I find that there was no issue of error of law or fact relating to this issue.
16In order for a decision of the Tribunal to be overturned, it must not only have made an error in fact, but that fact must be significant enough that the Tribunal likely would come to a different decision.
17I find that the alleged clerical errors were not part of the decision and as a result did not affect the decision.
CONCLUSION
18For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant's Request for Reconsideration.
Released: June 16, 2020
Robert Watt
Adjudicator