Dr. Perera

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2012 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for massage therapy and the partially denied balances of two treatment plans for case management services.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The applicant did not submit the disputed OCF-18s into evidence, leaving the Tribunal without a breakdown of costs or duration of treatment.

Furthermore, the medical evidence, including the applicant's own kinesiologist report, supported that she had reached maximum medical recovery from passive treatment and was benefiting from active therapy, undermining the request for massage therapy.

The case management report provided was also deemed unhelpful as it lacked necessary details to justify the disputed amounts.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn the pre-trial conference and trial of a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs had served several expert reports, including a new economic loss report and a biomechanics report, shortly before the deadline and trial date.

The defendant argued that additional time was required to obtain responding expert reports, conduct further defence medical examinations, and pursue documentary discovery from non-parties.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without the opportunity to fully defend the claims outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy services.

The Tribunal found that it had committed a clear error of fact and law by relying on incorrect submissions that addressed a psychological treatment plan not in dispute.

Upon reviewing the correct submissions, the Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the $2,486.45 physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary to address her chronic pain and functional limitations.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts over the respondent's section 44 assessor, noting the latter failed to contemplate a chronic pain diagnosis.

The request for reconsideration was granted and the treatment plan was approved.

The applicant sought payment for a $2,488.45 physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit on the basis that it was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as her submissions focused on psychological impairments and a different treatment plan not in dispute.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment, which found no objective evidence of ongoing physical impairment requiring further therapy, the Tribunal dismissed the application.