Can the PIC decide a CTP dispute on the papers without a hearing?

PIC2 lists practical factors. The Commission asks whether submissions address all relevant issues, the evidence deals with the dispute, further submissions are required, either party requested a papers decision, an objection has been made, a credit issue exists, the matter is complex or involves only questions of law, and whether the process is appropriate overall.

The decision-maker also considers whether a self-represented party, or a party whose cultural or linguistic background affects written presentation, understands the Commission’s role and has been able to put the case. This does not create an automatic hearing whenever a claimant is unrepresented. It requires a practical assessment of fairness and effective participation.

For motor accident claims disputes, MA7 expressly permits review on the papers as one of several processes. Medical assessment and merit review streams have their own procedural directions and statutory framework, so the event name and notice should be checked before applying claims-assessment assumptions.

Start with the insurer decision and identify each reason. State the decision requested from PIC and the legal provision that permits it. Prepare a short chronology, indexed evidence and submissions that connect each factual proposition to a page. The decision-maker should not have to infer the case from an unstructured collection of records.

Where medical evidence is relied on, identify diagnosis, causation, relevant clinical findings, treatment request or impairment method rather than merely attaching reports. For PAWE, weekly-payment or liability issues, show the calculation, work-capacity evidence, accident evidence or income records relevant to the insurer’s stated reason.

Address adverse material. If the insurer relies on surveillance, an IME, inconsistent histories or a different calculation, explain the specific point and evidence. A papers process removes the opportunity to repair an omission orally, so completeness and clarity are especially important.

A party can state a view, but PIC decides the process. A request should explain why the issues are narrow, the evidence is complete and no oral testing is required. An objection should identify a concrete fairness reason, such as a material credit issue, disputed oral history, need to question a witness, unresolved expert issue or difficulty presenting the case only in writing.

PIC2 says a party should give reasons for objecting. A bare preference for a hearing may carry little weight. Conversely, an objection should not be used to delay a matter that can fairly be decided from complete records. Offer a proportionate alternative, such as a short telephone conference confined to the unresolved issue.

If the Commission confirms a papers date, comply with every submission and document cutoff. Do not send material directly to the decision-maker. Use Pathway or the Registry process, serve all parties and follow Rule 67C/PIC12 if additional documents are sought after the initiating bundle.