- Evidence (reply)
- Reconsideration (new evidence)
The worker applied for reconsideration of Decisions No. 979/14 and 979/14R2, which denied entitlement for a right shoulder injury on September 7, 2010. In support of the reconsideration request, the worker submitted two new medical reports.
The application was granted. The threshold test for reconsideration was met.The new evidence met the test in Tribunal case law and the Practice Direction on Reconsiderations for consideration of new evidence. Decision No. 979/14 denied entitlement because there was a lack of medical evidence of a right shoulder injury from around the time of the accident. The new evidence consisted of a report from the worker's family physician from September 2010 that the worker felt pain in his right shoulder on September 7, 2010, and a 2020 opinion from an orthopaedic surgeon stating that the shoulder could have been injured in the accident and explaining the delay in the onset of shoulder symptoms. This was substantial new evidence that was not available at the original hearing and likely would have changed the outcome of the appeal. The evidence was logically persuasive and of superior quality.New evidence that is considered on reconsideration should be new medical evidence, rather than more evidence on the same issue that could be characterized as reply evidence. Although the report from the orthopaedic surgeon was requested by the worker's representative to refute aspects of the original decision, it was new medical evidence as it was the only medical report on file that explicitly addressed causation of the worker's shoulder injury. Reconsideration vice-chairs or panels also have discretion in appropriate cases to consider new evidence prepared after the original decision in order to refute an aspect of that decision. A new hearing was to be held on the merits.