The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that found him catastrophically impaired but denied post-104 income replacement benefits, attendant care, housekeeping, and a special award.
The applicant argued the denial of these benefits was logically inconsistent with the catastrophic impairment finding.
The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact in the original decision.
The adjudicator held that the applicant's psychological impairments, which warranted the catastrophic designation, did not preclude him from performing his pre-accident casual work, and that the attendant care and housekeeping benefits were properly denied as they were not incurred.
