RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Derek Grant, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-000065/AABS
Case Name: Eleonor Perez v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Stefan Juzkiw, Counsel
For the Respondent: Jane Cvijan, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1The applicant, E.P., requests a reconsideration of my decision wherein I found that her accident-related injuries were confined to the Minor Injury Guideline and that she is not entitled to payment of the disputed medical benefits or interest.
2E.P. submits that I made errors of law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
RESULT
3E.P.’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
4E.P. was involved in an accident on February 6, 2018, and sought various benefits from the respondent, Dominion, pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 20101 (the ''Schedule''). Dominion denied the benefits on the basis that it determined that E.P.’s accident-related impairments were predominantly minor injuries and therefore limited to treatment within the Minor Injury Guideline (the “MIG”).
5E.P. relied on a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) from her family physician, Dr. Yang, a pre-screen psychological report, diagnostic testing results, a consultation report by her pre-accident treating psychiatrist, Dr. Nicolici, and a chiropractic assessment.
6Her position was that the medical documentation demonstrates that she suffered from pre-existing impairments which were exacerbated by the accident and prevent her from recovery under the MIG. In addition, she submitted that her diagnosed chronic pain and psychological impairments are not predominantly minor injuries.
ANALYSIS
7The grounds for reconsideration are contained in Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017), as amended (“Common Rules”). For the purposes of this request, E.P. relies on criteria 18.2(b), submitting that I made errors of fact or law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had they not been made.
8It is well settled that the purpose of reconsideration is not to reargue one’s position or findings of fact. The onus remains on the applicant to clearly identify the alleged error of fact or law and demonstrate how, if the alleged error was not made, the outcome would likely have been different. In the subject proceeding, the Tribunal’s findings were made after considering and weighing the evidence, coming to a reasonable outcome from it, and reaching a decision, a parties’ disagreement with those findings does not constitute an error.
9Under Rule 18.2(b) E.P. has failed to show an error of fact or law.
10I have reviewed E.P.’s submissions and I find that she has not met her onus on a reconsideration of identifying an error of fact or law such that I would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made. Her submissions amount to a request for a reweighing of the medical evidence.
11I agree with Dominion that E.P. has not raised any issues of fact or law that would have resulted in a different outcome had the error not been made. As previously noted, this is the onus that E.P. is required to meet, in accordance with Rule 18.2(b). Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with my decision.
CONCLUSION
12For the reasons above, E.P.’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Derek Grant
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: December 21, 2021