George Charalambous

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans and non-earner benefits, raising preliminary issues of limitation periods and non-compliance with insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to dispute the 2017 treatment plans within the two-year limitation period and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act due to the applicant's failure to attend s. 44 insurer examinations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was barred from receiving non-earner benefits due to this non-compliance.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded the 2018 and 2019 treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's chronic pain specialist over the applicant's chiropractor.