Kelly v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 10355

Citation: Kelly v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-003751/AABS - A

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-003751/AABS

In the matter of an application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.

Between:

Fiona Kelly

Applicant

and

Intact Insurance Company

Respondent

AMENDED DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Sarah Guergis

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Brent McQuestion, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Maryam Younes, Counsel Christine Haddad, Counsel

HEARD:

In Writing

OVERVIEW

1Fiona Kelly, the Applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on September 1, 2018, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). The Applicant was denied benefits by the Respondent, Intact Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES

2The issues in dispute are:

1. Is the Applicant entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $2,058.90 per month from May 15, 2024, to date and ongoing?

2. Is the Applicant entitled to $194.50 ($3,060.00 less $2,865.50 approved) for social work counseling, proposed by Milner and Pailing Psychology in a treatment plan submitted May 7, 2024?

3. Is the Applicant entitled to $1,763.28 ($1,983.34 less $220.06 approved) for a horse cart, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted May 21, 2024?

4. Is the Applicant entitled to $1,019.90 ($3,214.49 less $2,194.59 approved) for rehabilitation services, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted February 6, 2024?

5. Is the Applicant entitled to $273.25 ($4,941.83 less $4,668.58 approved) for case management services, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted February 6, 2024?

6. Is the Applicant entitled to $275.21 ($3,497.43 less $3,222.22 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Niagara Orthopaedic Institute Fonthill in a treatment plan submitted May 6, 2024?

7. Is the Applicant entitled to $903.25 ($2,200.00 less $1,296.75 approved) for an attendant care assessment, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted March 11, 2024?

8. Is the Applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

3In their reply submissions, the Applicant wrote: “on April 30, 2025, two (2) weeks following receipt of the Applicant’s written hearing submissions, the Respondent unequivocally agreed to approve Issues #2-4 and #7-10 (as listed in the case conference report and order).”

4Therefore, issues 2-4 and 7-10 are withdrawn and this is reflected in the list of issues above.

RESULT

5I find that the attendant care benefits are not payable to the date of this decision.

6I find that the treatment plans and partial amounts in dispute are not payable.

7I find no interest is payable.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

8The Applicant submits that no s. 44 insurer examinations and/or a Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (“Form-1”), was produced by the Respondent by October 29, 2024, in accordance with the “final document exchange deadline” in the case conference report and order (“CCRO”). The Applicant submits that any attempt by the Respondent to adduce such evidence ought to be rebuffed by this Tribunal as it would prejudice the Applicant.

9The Applicant requests the s. 44 assessments be excluded from evidence due to late production. The CCRO ordered them to be submitted by October 29, 2024, and they weren’t provided until November 20 and 22, 2024.

10The Respondent submits that the reason that the reports were produced late was because the Applicant delayed the IE assessments. It submits that the Applicant refused to attend an assessment with the originally chosen OT assessor and on July 25, 2024, it was advised that the OT and GP assessors had been changed and provided new dates for the IEs, which were in August and October 2024. The Applicant raised issues with the GP assessor chosen a second time. On August 1, 2024, the Respondent advised that it would attempt to change the GP assessor again. Ultimately, due to the change in assessors at the request of the Applicant, the IEs proceeded on August 2, 14, October 7, and November 6, 2024, and were received and sent to the Applicant on November 20 and 22, 2024, respectively.

11The Applicant’s submissions were due on April 16, 2024. As the Applicant had 5 months to review the reports and provide her submissions, I find that there is no prejudice to the Applicant by allowing the assessments into evidence. Further, that excluding the reports from evidence would be highly prejudicial to the Respondent as this evidence is central to the hearing and to their case.

12Therefore, I am denying the Applicant’s request to exclude these assessments.

ANALYSIS

Is the Applicant entitled to attendant care benefits (“ACBs”) in the amount of $2,058.90 per month from May 15, 2024, to date and ongoing?

13I find that ACBs are not payable to the date of this decision.

14Section 19 of the Schedule states that an insurer shall pay for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of an insured person as a result of an accident for ACBs provided by an aide or attendant. Section 42(1) of the Schedule provides that an application for ACBs must be in the form of, and contain the information required to be provided in, the version of the document entitled Form-1.

15The Applicant submits that she is entitled to $2,058.90 in ACBs per month from May 15, 2024, to date and ongoing.

16The Respondent submits that ACBs have been paid from June 10, 2024, to November 22, 2024.

17The Applicant relies on an occupational therapy in-home assessment report dated May 15, 2024, by occupational therapist, Afsha Husain. In the summary of this report, they state that the Applicant requires attendant care in the areas of grooming, feeding, mobility, hygiene, basic supervisory care, coordination of attendant care, medication and bathing. Her ACBs are calculated to be $2,058.90 per month. Housekeeping services and occupational therapy intervention, rehabilitation therapy services, multidisciplinary intervention, and transportation services were also recommended.

18The Respondent submits that the Applicant has not incurred any ACBs and pursuant to s.19(3)5 of the Schedule, it is clear that it is only responsible for paying for actual expenses incurred in respect of attended care services, even if they are lower than the determined amount of monthly ACBs. Further, that no invoices have been provided to the Respondent from June 10, 2024, to November 22, 2024. Therefore, there are no ACBs owing.

19The Respondent further relies on the conclusions of four separate s. 44 assessors in determining her ongoing entitlement to ACBs:

i. In a s. 44 assessment by Dr. Kopyto, General Practitioner, dated November 20, 2024, he wrote that the Applicant’s examination was within normal limits and that the Applicant remains independent and denied any impairment in her self-care. Further, that she denied any difficulty with walking, washing her hair, dressing, shaving or bathing. Based on the medical records, his exam and her reports, he diagnosed her with strain of the neck and back, post-traumatic headaches and concussion. He found she did not have a musculoskeletal impairment that necessitated the services of an aide or an attendant to assist with activities of daily living (“ADLs”) and personal care activities.

ii. In a s. 44 neurological assessment by Dr. Kucher, neurologist, dated November 24, 2024, he reported that the Applicant continued to be 100% independent in basic ADL. Further, that the examination was normal and did not reveal any current accident-related objective neurologic impairments and as such, no ACBs were required. He diagnosed her with concussion/mild traumatic brain injury (“MTBI”).

iii. In a s. 44 psychological assessment by Dr. Smith, psychologist, dated November 20, 2024, he diagnosed the Applicant with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in partial remission and Major Depressive Disorder, as a result of the subject MVA. He reported that her pre-existing Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Panic Disorder were considered exacerbated by the impact of the MVA. Further, that the Applicant reported she has recovered to a great degree from her physical pain but still experienced intermittent headache, double vision and occasional fear of seizure. She did not report a pattern of reduced activity avoidance to reduce pain and tends to remain mobile throughout her day, resting briefly to manage energy. There were no identified psychological impairments that would necessitate the services of an attendant or aide. Although she reported reduced motivation for self-care and some household tasks, she remains psychologically capable of independent completion of such tasks.

iv. In a s. 44 psychological assessment by Ms. Shoabana Kugathasan, occupational therapist, dated November 20, 2024, the Applicant reported that she is managing personal care tasks independently. Ms. Kugathasan noted that the Applicant demonstrated a functional range of motion in all areas with discomfort in her mid-back noted during some testing. She reported she is physically capable of dressing and undressing. She can wash her face and hands, brush her teeth, wash her hair, trim her nails. She can but does not bother shaving or applying makeup. She can prepare a simple breakfast and heat up leftovers. She is independent in mobility. She can physically clean the bathroom. She can choose her daily clothing and hang her clothes. She can exit her home independently in a timely manner. She keeps track of appointments on a whiteboard, and her partner and housemate will remind her. She uses blister packs to remember her medication. She sits on the bottom of the tub to shower. As a result of her assessment and the conclusions reached by other assessors, Ms. Kugathasan did not find a need for attendant care and provided a Form-1 in the amount of $0.00.

20The Respondent submits that Ms. Kugathasan’s report should be given more weight as it is more recent and in line with the actual incurred amount of ACBs, which is none. Ms. Kugathasan reviewed all available medical documentation and based her opinion on the totality of the evidence.

21Upon review of the submissions and evidence, I find the Applicant has not established that the services were incurred pursuant to s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule. The Applicant did not identify in their written submissions or reply whether the ACBs in dispute have been incurred.

22I find the Applicant has met their burden to establish on a balance of probabilities the reasonableness and necessity of ACBs. Ms. Husein’s report demonstrates that the Applicant requires attendant care in the areas of grooming, feeding, mobility, hygiene, basic supervisory care, coordination of attendant care, medication and bathing.

23I acknowledge the Respondent’s evidence and agree that their reports are more recent by roughly 6 months. I also acknowledge that Ms. Kugathasan’s report reviewed all available medical documentation and based her opinion on the totality of the evidence. However, as it is the Applicant’s burden to demonstrate their entitlement, that is the focus of my decision.

24Further, as the Applicant bears the onus to prove that ACBs have been incurred I find they have not met their onus and have therefore not established entitlement.

25Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find that the ACBs are not payable to the date of this decision.

Is the Applicant entitled to $194.50 ($3,060.00 less $2,865.50 approved) for social work counseling, proposed by Milner and Pailing Psychology in a treatment plan submitted May 7, 2024?

26I find that the outstanding amount of this plan is not payable.

27The Applicant and Respondent both submit that this plan has been partially approved leaving the outstanding amount at $194.50 for the proposed rate of the social worker.

28To receive payment for a treatment and assessment plan under s. 15 and 16 of the Schedule, the Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that the benefit is reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident. To do so, the Applicant should identify the goals of treatment, how the goals would be met to a reasonable degree and that the overall costs of achieving them are reasonable.

29The Professional Services Guideline (“PSG”) establishes the maximum expenses payable by automobile insurers under the Schedule related to services provided by health care professions, or health care providers listed within the PSG. Insurers are not prohibited from paying above any maximum amount or hourly rate established in the PSG. It is also noted within the PSG that services provided by health care professionals/providers, unregulated providers and other occupations not listed within the PSG are not covered. For services not covered by the PSG, the amounts payable by an insurer are to be determined by the parties involved. The PSG further notes that automobile insurers are not liable to pay expenses for services rendered to an insured person which exceed the maximum hourly rates set out in the PSG’s Appendix.

30The Applicant submits that the hourly rate sought in the present case, namely, $120.00, is less than the prescribed fee of the industry standard of the Ontario Association of Social Workers (“OASW”), and is therefore reasonable. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent’s s.44 examiner, Dr. Ian Smith, found the subject OCF-18 to be both reasonable and necessary, and it is the Respondent who has arbitrarily reduced the hourly rate without any basis.

31The Applicant relies on R.O. v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 CanLII 94029 (ON LAT), where the Tribunal found that the Applicant had tendered evidence to show that the rate of $130.00/hr is an industry standard and was reasonable in that case.

32The Respondent denies it arbitrarily determined the approved rate of a social worker. It submits that the Tribunal has determined several times that an appropriate rate for a social worker is $100.00/hr and it chose a rate even higher than that. This was considered reasonable as it is approximately the mid-way between the PSG rates for unregulated providers and psychologists. Further, that the Applicant has provided no evidence to justify or support a higher rate other than what the industry standard is. The PSG rates in general are not subject to the industry standard.

33The Respondent relies on Shahrawan v. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 5843 (ON LAT) at para 41 and Duffy v. Aviva General Insurance, 2022 CanLII 78788 (ON LAT) at para 44, where $100/hr was determined to be reasonable under the circumstances.

34I find the Applicant has not met their onus to establish the hourly rate of $120/hr is reasonable or necessary. In their submissions the Applicant has directed me to the industry standard for social workers as $130/hr. However, as an unregulated professional the hourly rate of $120/hr is higher than what is outlined in the PSG and the Applicant has not directed me to why this rate is reasonable or necessary in this case. The Respondent has accepted a rate of $120/hr and I find there is not persuasive evidence to support the reasonableness or necessity of the proposed rate.

35Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find that the outstanding amount is not payable.

Is the Applicant entitled to $1,763.28 ($1,983.34 less $220.06 approved) for a horse cart, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted May 21, 2024?

36I find that the outstanding portion of this plan is not payable.

S. 38

37Section 38(8) requires an insurer to inform an insured person, within 10 business days after it receives the treatment plan, of the medical and other reasons why it considered the goods and services not to be reasonable and necessary if it denies a plan. Pursuant to s. 38(11), if an insurer fails to comply with its obligations under section 38(8), it must pay for the goods and services that relate to the period starting on the 11th business day after the insurer received the application and ending on the day the insurer gives a notice described in s. 38(8) and it is prohibited from taking the position that the insured person has a impairment to which the minor injury guideline applies.

38The Applicant submits that the subject OCF-18 was submitted on May 21, 2024. The Respondent denied the OCF-18 on June 6, 2024, a period greater than 10 business days. S. 38(8) of the Schedule requires an insured to respond to an OCF-18 within 10 business days.

39The Applicant submits Darlene Humphrey, case manager, raised the subject of the statutory breach, and provided the Respondent repeated instances of supportive rationale for the recommended horse cart, on May 27, 2024, June 7, 2024, June 21, 2024, and July 3, 2024.

40However, the Applicant does not mention in their submissions or point me to evidence that the outstanding amount of the plan has been incurred.

41The Respondent submits that it acknowledges that this treatment plan was responded to late by a period of 2 days but denies that it must pay the entirety of the OCF-18 due to a late denial letter, regardless of whether it is reasonable or necessary.

42The Respondent relies on Aviva General Insurance Company v. Catic, 2022 ONSC 6000, where the Divisional Court found that s. 38(11)2 of the Schedule operates to compel an insurer who fails to provide notice under s. 38(8) to pay for all items listed in the subject treatment plan but only if they are incurred and only for the period during which any denial remains outstanding.

43I considered the parties’ submissions. Both parties agree the Respondent’s denial was submitted late. However, the Applicant did not direct me to evidence which would establish that the outstanding portion of this plan had been incurred during the period of it’s non-compliance with s.38(8) pursuant to Aviva General Insurance Company v. Catic, 2022 ONSC 6000.

44Therefore, s.38(8) is not triggered.

Reasonableness and necessity

45The Applicant did not make submissions on the reasonableness or necessity of the horse cart in their initial or reply submissions, so there is no analysis.

46Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, the outstanding amount of this plan is not payable.

Is the Applicant entitled to $1,019.90 ($3,214.49 less $2,194.59 approved) for rehabilitation services, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation, in a treatment plan submitted February 6, 2024?

47I find that the outstanding portion of this plan is not payable. As per the denial letter dated February 21, 2024, the denied amount is for documentation, support activity, and transportation to treatment.

48The Applicant submits that the Respondent partially approved the subject OCF-18, thereby refusing to fund some items, such as, provider travel time, and reducing the proposing funding for documentation. The Respondent provided no reason for the reduction apart from arbitrarily indicating that 1 hour ought to be sufficient for the proposed documentation.

49The Applicant relies on Patton v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 CanLII 28487 (ON LAT), in support of her position that the amounts proposed are reasonable and necessary, and payable by the Respondent. However, the Applicant does not outline how this case supports the reasonableness or necessity of the outstanding amount of this plan.

50The Respondent submits that there is nothing that specifies that it must pay $200.00 per form completion. Further, that as per the PSG, it is only required to pay $99.75 per hour for an OT. There is no evidence that the treatment provider in this scenario took longer than an hour to complete the OCF-18 and therefore, the Respondent should not be required to pay in excess of the hourly rate stipulated by the PSG. There are no submissions by the Applicant on why $200.00 is reasonable or necessary to complete a standard form or how long it took her to complete the OCF-18.

51The Respondent relies on Boucher v Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 28462, where the Tribunal agreed that without explanation, one hour is sufficient to complete an OCF-18.

52The Respondent advised that as for lines 2 and 5, relating to service planning and administration costs, as per the PSG, it is not responsible for business expenses that effectively increase the hourly rate payable.

53Finally, as per Line 4, the Respondent denied claimant transportation as per s. 3(1) of the Schedule and the Transportation Expense Guideline (“TEG”). Section 3(1) imposes a 50 km deductible per round trip unless the injuries are catastrophic. Line 4 noted 40 km of mileage, which falls below the 50 km deductible and therefore is not payable under s. 3(1). The TEG states that “authorized transportation expenses” are expressly limited to expenses relating to the transportation of the insured person and their aide or attendant. Any other mileage or expenses related to anyone else are not authorized under the Schedule and insurers are not required to pay for these expenses if claimed by a healthcare provider.

54I considered the parties submissions. I do not find the Applicant has met their onus to outline specifically why the remaining balance of this plan is reasonable and necessary. The Applicant did not include the reasonableness or necessity of the outstanding portion of this plan for documentation, support activity, transportation, or form completion in their submissions or reply.

55Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find that this is not payable.

Is the Applicant entitled to $273.25 ($4,941.83 less $4,668.58 approved) for case management services, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation, in a treatment plan submitted February 6, 2024?

56I find that the outstanding amount of this plan is not payable.

57The Applicant does not directly refer to case management services in their initial or reply submissions. Nor is the plan with an outstanding amount of $273.25 addressed in their submissions or reply.

58The Respondent submits that it reduced the OCF-18 form completion fee and denied parking expenses. It submits that no further explanation was provided by the treatment provider for additional time to complete a basic form. The Respondent repeats and adopts its arguments regarding transportation expenses. It submits that parking expenses would fall under transportation expenses, and the TEG and s.15(2)(c) of the Schedule would apply in the same manner. There were no receipts or no further explanation as to what these parking expenses related to and as such, the Respondent is not required to pay for them.

59I find that the Applicant has not met their onus to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the remaining $273.25 in this plan, nor pointed me to evidence to break down exactly what it is for.

60Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the Applicant is not entitled to the balance of this plan.

Is the Applicant entitled to $275.21 ($3,497.43 less $3,222.22 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Niagara Orthopaedic Institute Fonthill, in a treatment plan13 submitted May 6, 2024?

61I find that the outstanding amount of this plan is not payable.

62The Applicant submits that the Respondent provided no reason for the reduction of documentation apart from arbitrarily indicating that 1 hour ought to be sufficient.

63The Applicant relies on Patton v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 CanLII 28487 (ON LAT), in support of their position that the amounts proposed are reasonable and necessary, and payable by the Respondent. However, the Applicant did not elaborate on this case and how it applies to the outstanding amount of this plan.

64The Respondent submits that it reduced the OCF-18 form completion fee, sought further detail on Line 6 (exercise equipment) and reduced the approved cost for the recommended assistive devices on the basis that they were found at a lower cost on Amazon.

65The Respondent repeats and adopts their arguments regarding the OCF-18 form completion fee that no further explanation was provided by the treatment provider for additional time to complete a basic form.

66Regarding the adjustment of assistive devices, the Respondent relies on the Cost of Goods Guideline, which states that the Respondent is only liable to pay the lowest price that would be payable by on or behalf of an insured person to acquire the item from a source that is available to the general public in Ontario or the price actually paid by the insured, whichever is lower. The Respondent found the lowest price on Amazon.ca, which is widely available to the public. The Respondent submits that the OCF-18 prices proposed for the assistive devices are excessive, which they are not liable to pay for when there are lower priced options available.

67Further, regarding line 6, the Respondent submits the proposed goods were vague and ambiguous. That it is unclear what exercise equipment is being sought in the amount of $50.00 and no clarification was provided by the Applicant, her representative or her treatment provider. The Respondent submits that it cannot assess whether this equipment will be necessary to the Applicant’s recovery if it does not know what it is.

68I considered the parties submissions. I find that the Applicant has not pointed me to evidence which would establish that the lower priced items found by the Respondent would not be reasonable or necessary. The Applicant has not provided me with a clear breakdown of what the balance of this plan is for, why the items are reasonable and necessary, and why the Respondent’s lower-priced items would not be suitable. I agree with the Respondent that it is challenging to assess the reasonableness and necessity of this plan given the lack of clarity.

69Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find the balance of this plan is not payable.

Is the Applicant entitled to $903.25 ($2,200.00 less $1,296.75 approved) for an attendant care assessment, proposed by Ross Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted March 11, 2024?

70I find that the outstanding amount of this plan is not payable.

71The Applicant submits that the Respondent has produced no evidence as to what it paid its own s. 44 occupational therapy insurer examiner to assess the Applicant’s attendant care needs, and that amount either exceeded what it agreed to fund for the related s. 25 attendant care assessment and/or whether the amount paid to the s. 44 occupational therapist exceeded what is permitted pursuant to s. 25(5) of the Schedule.

72The Applicant requests that the Tribunal draw an adverse inference against the Respondent for failing to produce said evidence. The Applicant submits that the Respondent has failed to comply with its production obligations pursuant to this Tribunal’s Order, dated August 15, 2024, with regard to providing the Applicant with “copies of all OCF-21 forms relevant to the issues in dispute” and “Insurance examination(s) amounts spent to date”.

73The Applicant relies on Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Ridi, 2022 ONCA 564, where the Ontario Court of Appeal found, when considering various Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”) Guidelines, including the PSG, ultimately concluded that “bulletins are not binding unless they are incorporated in a Regulation...”, and the Applicant submits that the PSG has not been incorporated in a Regulation.

74The Respondent submits that it partially approved this treatment plan which included 12 hours for the completion of the assessment at the rate of $99.75/hr. Further, that in order to consider payment beyond the 12 hours, the Respondent sought a detailed breakdown of each component of the assessment, the length of time required and the practitioners providing the service. It submits that to date, no detailed breakdown has been provided that would warrant payment beyond 12 hours for the completion of this assessment. It submits the report from Ms. Afsha Husain, occupational therapist, provides no information on how long the assessment took.

75The Respondent submits that it relied on the Costs of Assessments and Examinations Guideline (“CAEG”), in its partial approval, not the PSG. Second, that the Court of Appeal did not state at any point that either the CAEG or the PSG were not binding Bulletins. The Court of Appeal stated that former Bulletin A-04/15 (Use of Credit Information for Fleets, Commercial Use, Public Vehicles and HST) was not incorporated by any Regulation and therefore it was not binding on insurers in determining whether HST was to form part of the med/rehab and attendant care limits. It is not applicable to this case at all. The CAEG is incorporated in the Schedule at s. 25(3) and 25(5)(a).

76I find that the Applicant has not met their burden to establish, through their written submissions or reply, that the balance of the plan in dispute is reasonable or necessary. Nor did they direct me to a break down of what the outstanding amount is for, or provided medical evidence supporting the outstanding amounts reasonableness or necessity. It is not the Respondent’s responsibility to disprove entitlement. While I acknowledge that the Respondent did not provide evidence of the breakdown of costs of the s. 44 assessors, even if the Respondent spent more than $2,000.00 on its assessments, this would not automatically entitle the Applicant to the outstanding amounts claimed under the disputed plan.

77Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find that this plan is not payable.

Interest

78Pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule, I find that no interest is owing.

ORDER

79I find that the attendant care benefits are not payable to the date of this decision.

80I find that the treatment plans and partial amounts in dispute are not payable.

81I find no interest is payable.