Taylor Sanderson

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services, occupational therapy, and assistive devices.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

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

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examinations and surveillance evidence, which demonstrated that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and was functioning independently in her activities of daily living, over the applicant's evidence.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that treatment plans for massage therapy, physiotherapy, aqua therapy, and a hot tub were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain.

However, claims for a Costco membership, private pool therapy, a rehabilitation support worker, and occupational therapy were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits by relying on its s. 44 assessments.