Aug 26, 2017
Hughes Amys' Shikha Sharma successful on Request for Reconsideration before the LAT
Author Michael S. Teitelbaum
Related Lawyer Shikha Sharma
Further to the earlier Blawg post, pasted below, new congratulations are in order to our Shikha Sharma for successfully resisting the applicant's request for reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision in D.D.D. and RBC Insurance Company
, in which the LAT had found that the applicant was not working after the accident due to being laid off for reasons unrelated to the accident, and the Adjudicator dismissed the original application.
The non-cuttable and non-pasteable decision is attached.
The Executive Chair of SLASTO denied the request for reconsideration finding:
1) There was no error by the Adjudicator in the application of the applicable test for determining eligibility for an IRB, setting out the reasons the applicant did not suffer from a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment at para. 16;
2) The Adjudicator applied the requisite standard of proof, (see paras. 18-20);
3) There was no error by the Adjudicator in considering evidence, as the evidence about pre-accident employment more than one year before the accident did not provide any basis for the Tribunal's conclusion; and
4) The Adjudicator did not misapprehend the evidence, or hear misleading evidence.
Well Done, Shikha!
Congratulations to Hughes Amys' Shikha Sharma on her successful result before the Licence Appeal Tribunal in an IRBs claim
by Michael Teitelbaum | Apr 01, 2017
Hearty Congratulations and a tip of the advocacy chapeau to our Shikha Sharma for her second recent success before the Licence Appeal Tribunal!
In D.D.D. and RBC Insurance Company, it was held that the applicant was not entitled to income replacement benefits.
Our Linda Kiley observes that this was one of the earliest LAT hearings and is noteworthy because the Adjudicator permitted the applicant, the family doctor and a chronic pain specialist to give evidence at an oral hearing.
After considering all of the evidence, the Adjudicator accepted Shikha’s submission that the applicant was not working after the accident due to being laid off for reasons unrelated to the accident. The Adjudicator held that the applicant had failed to prove her entitlement to IRBs and dismissed her application.
A non-cuttable and non-pasteable version of the decision is attached.
Adjudicator Gottfried addressed certain evidentiary issues, holding that any documents that were not produced on time prior to the hearing could not be relied upon at the hearing, but did allow documents produced at the case conference to be used. The Adjudicator also allowed the family doctor to testify on the clinical notes and records that had been submitted in evidence, although there was a prior understanding the doctor would give evidence via affidavit. Shikha prepared her cross-examination on short notice and advised the Adjudicator she had sufficient time to prepare and was not prejudiced.
The Adjudicator found that "she did not suffer from a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks and that she was not working because she was laid off. There was no evidence before me that she was laid off because of an inability to perform her employment tasks and, in fact the applicant testified she continued to look for work between layoffs and was available to work if a position was available".