The Court held that a workers compensation claimant's failure to attend an independent medical examination requested by the employer under s 282(2) of the 1998 Act means the claimant has not provided all relevant particulars, and the two-week limitation in s 282(3) for requesting further particulars does not apply to or constrain the employer's right to require attendance at an independent medical examination under s 282(2). The Court further held that the date of service of a WPI claim was not a jurisdictional fact conditioning the PIC's power to dismiss proceedings under s 54(c) of the PIC Act, and that where a reconsideration application under s 57 of the PIC Act is dismissed (rather than resulting in an altered decision), the material date for the UCPR r 59.10 limitation period remains the date of the original determination. The principles in Samuel v Sebel Furniture regarding the discretion to reconsider under the repealed s 350(3) of the 1998 Act remain applicable to s 57(1) of the PIC Act given the provisions are in essentially the same terms.
The full text is available to signed-in members.