3 total
Massage therapy partially approved; attendant care assessment denied due to contradictory social media evidence.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for massage therapy and an attendant care re-assessment.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the massage therapy treatment plan partially reasonable and necessary, as the evidence showed it provided temporary relief of pain and improved function.
However, the Tribunal denied the attendant care re-assessment, finding the applicant's reported functional limitations were contradicted by social media evidence showing her traveling and participating in physical activities.
The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue massage therapy benefits but denied an award for unreasonable delay.
Chiropractic treatment plan approved as reasonable and necessary; social work and neurological assessments denied.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, including funding for chiropractic treatment, a social work assessment, and a neurological assessment.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's own assessors who acknowledged the applicant's chronic pain and potential benefit from facility-based treatment.
However, the Tribunal denied the social work and neurological assessments, finding them duplicative and unsupported by the medical evidence.
Claims for an award for unreasonably withheld benefits and costs were also dismissed.
Insurer ordered to pay medical benefits after its expert reports were rejected for lacking sufficient reasoning.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various medical treatments, including physiotherapy, acupuncture, and a YMCA membership.
The insurer denied the treatment plans based on independent medical examinations.
At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the insurer and its assessors failed to consider the applicant's physically demanding summer employment, treating him merely as a sedentary student.
The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert reports as lacking sufficient reasoning and preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners.
The arbitrator concluded that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay the claimed amounts, interest, and the applicant's arbitration expenses.
No co-appearing lawyers found.
No judges found.