3 total
Reconsideration granted and physiotherapy treatment plan approved due to Tribunal's previous reliance on incorrect submissions.
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.
Application for physiotherapy benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove treatment was reasonable and necessary.
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.
Application for income replacement benefits dismissed due to late disability certificate and failure to meet substantial inability test.
The applicant sought weekly income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.
The core dispute centered on when the applicant submitted a completed disability certificate (OCF-3) and whether he met the substantial inability test.
The Tribunal found the OCF-3 was not submitted until April 9, 2018, precluding benefits prior to that date.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a call centre agent.
The application for IRBs, interest, and an award was dismissed.
