Dr. Gembora

Both parties requested reconsideration of a decision regarding statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The applicant sought to introduce new evidence to approve a denied treatment plan, which the Tribunal rejected as the evidence could have been obtained previously.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in approving two treatment plans based solely on pain complaints without evidence of functional improvement or actual pain reduction.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding a significant error of law and fact in the original decision.

The applicant's request was dismissed, the respondent's request was granted, and all three treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo psychological testing as part of a defence medical examination in a civil action alleging historical assaults during a domestic relationship.

The defendant argued the testing would assist a psychiatrist retained by the defence in forming an opinion and responding to the plaintiff’s psychological expert evidence.

The court held that additional defence medical examinations are discretionary and require clear and compelling evidence demonstrating necessity.

The proposed testing was characterized by the defence experts only as helpful or beneficial rather than necessary.

The court also considered the risk of creating an imbalance in expert evidence and the potential delay to the scheduled trial.

The motion for psychological testing was dismissed.