Oliver Gorman-Asal

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident that took place on September 20, 2018, in which she sustained soft tissue injuries. In December 2018, the applicant contracted meningitis resulting in myriad impairments including loss of hearing, loss of memory and other cognitive impairments. The respondent requested a preliminary issue hearing to determine whether the subject accident was a direct cause of the applicant’s brain impairments. Vice-Chair Gregory Flude concluded that the applicant did not satisfy her onus of proving that, on a balance of probabilities, the subject accident was a “necessary cause” of her meningitis and associated sequelae, and that, but for the accident, she would not have developed meningitis.

The applicant challenged the respondent’s determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG). The applicant argued that she suffered from chronic pain and developed psychological problems as a result of the subject accident and that those injuries should remove her from the MIG. The Tribunal found in favour of the respondent, preferring the respondent’s expert evidence and finding that the applicant had not met the evidentiary onus required to remove her from the MIG.

The applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration on the grounds that the Tribunal’s decision contained a significant error of fact or law. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s request since it had not made a significant error of fact or law, reiterating that the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to re-weigh the evidence.