Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-013101/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:
Akilan Kanagaratnam
Applicant
and
TD General Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Melanie Malach
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Masood Fariad, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Jagdeep Khela, Counsel
HEARD:
By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Akilan Kanagaratnam, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on April 1, 2022, 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, TD General Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2This decision is a rehearing as a result of the reconsideration decision dated December 10, 2025, that cancelled the initial decision pursuant to Rule 18.4 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023. The matter was ordered to be reheard based on the parties’ submissions and evidence from the initial written hearing.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) in the amount of $255.54 per week for the period from May 1, 2023 to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to medical benefits proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre as follows:
$3,622.31 for chiropractic treatment proposed in a treatment plan dated April 11, 2022;
$2,023.03 for chiropractic treatment proposed in a treatment plan dated August 22, 2022; and
$1,545.84 for chiropractic treatment proposed in a treatment plan dated September 21, 2022?
iii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
4The Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) lists issue 2(b) as, “Is the applicant entitled to $2,203.03 for chiropractic treatment proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre, in a treatment plan dated August 22, 2022.” The applicant advised in his submissions that this treatment plan was approved and is therefore no longer in dispute. Therefore, I have not included it in the issues in dispute.
RESULT
5I find that the applicant is entitled to an IRB in the amount of $255.54 per week for the period from May 1, 2023 to date and ongoing, plus interest.
6I find that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, dated April 11, 2022.
7I find that the applicant is entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, dated September 21, 2022, plus interest.
8I find that the respondent is not liable to pay an award.
ANALYSIS
Entitlement to IRBs
9I find that the applicant is entitled to an IRB in the amount of $255.54 per week for the period from May 1, 2023 to date and ongoing.
10Section 5(1) of the Schedule provides that an insurer shall pay an IRB to an insured person who sustains an impairment as a result of an accident if they were employed at the time of the accident and, as a result of and within 104 weeks after the accident, suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of that employment. The applicant bears the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that they meet the test.
11The applicant claims entitlement to an IRB in the amount of $255.54 per week for the period from May 1, 2023 to date and ongoing.
12At the time of the accident, the applicant submits that he worked in physically demanding roles, including property management, construction, renovations, repairs, maintenance and frequent long-distance driving for Olympia Park Ltd., since August 1, 2021. He worked eight hours per day and five to six days per week. He claims that as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident, including a Superior Labrum Anterior to Posterior (“SLAP”) lesion, chronic pain and psychological impairments, he was unable to resume his pre-accident employment.
13The applicant relies upon the letter from Dr. Christopher Sun, family physician, dated March 18, 2023, which states that the applicant suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a result of the accident. Dr. Sun notes that the applicant is “unable to use his R [right] arm and shoulder in an effective manner including holding objects for fine motor control such as writing implements.”
14The applicant relies upon the treatment plans prepared by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre which he argues specifically address his injuries including physical pain and restricted mobility. The treatment plans indicate that, “The applicant’s impairments from the injuries resulting from the subject accident affect his ability to carry out his tasks of employment”.
15The applicant submits that he suffers chronic pain because he continues to have debilitating pain in his neck, shoulder and back, that has lasted more than two years post-accident. The applicant submits that his neck, shoulder and back complaints are noted in the s. 44 reports. He argues that these reports highlight consistent and chronic pain symptoms in addition to limitations which the applicant continues to experience. The applicant further argues that these reports not only corroborate his ongoing symptoms, but they also support that he suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.
16The applicant further submits that the psychological report of Dr. Leon Steiner, psychologist, dated May 28, 2023, also corroborates and highlights many of the physical limitations and ongoing symptoms resulting from the subject accident. The report notes that he “continues to experience lingering pain symptoms in his neck, collarbone, upper back and lower back…pain symptoms are aggravated by sleeping on his right and front sides, exercise, physical work, jogging, sitting for too long and driving.” In addition, the report of Dr. Steiner highlights the psychological distress, anxiety and trauma that the applicant suffers which interferes with daily life and work, with symptoms consistent with moderate to severe depression. The Psychotherapy Progress report of Dr. Steiner dated January 30, 2024, notes that the applicant attended for psychotherapy from August 17, 2023 to January 25, 2025, and continued to experience driving anxiety, ongoing depression, anxiety, nightmares and repetitive disturbing thoughts.
17The respondent submits that the applicant has not proved that he is entitled to an IRB from May 1, 2023 to date and ongoing. The respondent relies upon the IE reports of Dr. Andrew Holland, chiropractor; Dr. Farshid Tabloie, orthopaedic surgeon; Dr. Nagib Yahmad, neurologist; and Dr. Debra Mandel, psychologist, dated February 24, 2023, who opined that the applicant does not suffer from a substantial inability to perform the essential duties of his pre-accident employment. It further relies upon the Addendum reports of Dr. Tabloie, dated July 25, 2023 and May 7, 2024. The respondent argues that despite requests made, the applicant did not provide the medical imaging requested in order for Dr. Tabloie to assess the applicant. The report of Dr. Tabloie notes that he was unable to determine whether the applicant suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment because no medical imaging was provided of the right sternoclavicular. The respondent argues that in the absence of evidence submitted by the applicant that supports his inability to return to his pre-accident employment duties as a result of the accident, he has not met his burden.
18The respondent also submits that the applicant first attended with Dr. Sun, on November 8, 2022, almost four months post-accident. The respondent argues that the applicant’s OHIP Summary for the claim period from April 1, 2018 to August 9, 2024, only notes one visit to Dr. Sun in 2024 and there are no other relevant records for his alleged accident-related injuries or any documented accident-related complaints since March 2024.
19The respondent further submits that based on the applicant’s 2023 income tax return, there is employment income in the amount of $21,000.00, which indicates that some form of income has been received by the applicant during the period in which IRBs were received.
20In reply, the applicant submits that he sought treatment immediately after the accident, as noted by various medical practitioners, contrary to the submissions of the respondent that he did not seek medical treatment until four months post-accident. The applicant argues that following the accident, he first sought treatment and visited Sports Medicine Centre of Excellence and Southlake Regional Health Centre. He was seen by multiple practitioners and received physical treatment prior to his first visit with Dr. Sun on November 8, 2022.
21With respect to the respondent’s submission that there are no CNRs after March 2024, the applicant argues that the CCRO limited production of CNRs to May 1, 2024.
22Finally, with respect to the respondent’s submission that his 2023 income tax return shows employment income of $21,000.00, the $21,000.00 is actually the applicant’s 2022 income prior to the April 1, 2022 accident. The applicant’ actual income for 2023 was $3,684.38 which was derived from interest earned through a Guaranteed Investment Certificate.
23I find that the applicant has proven entitlement to an IRB for the following reasons.
24I find that the CNRs of Dr. Sun support the applicant’s ongoing pain complaints and the diagnosis of chronic pain following the accident. The applicant first saw Dr. Sun post-accident on November 8, 2022 and reported “R clavicle pain SC joint, R lower back pain, whiplash..R arm reduced activity during nerve conduction study, less responsive..goes to physio, helps mitigate pain, extra strength Tylenol 4-5/day.” Dr. Sun diagnosed him with chronic pain and prescribed pain medication. The applicant continued to see Dr. Sun on an ongoing basis, and he was referred for an MRI of his right shoulder. The MRI report of his right shoulder, dated July 18, 2023, confirms “SLAP lesion, supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinopathy but no tear, subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis and a mild AC joint sprain/arthrosis with subacromial spur.” Following the results of the MRI, the applicant received a steroid shot for his right bursitis on August 1, 2023. Thereafter, he continued to see Dr. Sun and his physical complaints and functional limitations are noted in the CNRs. He was advised to continue taking Naproxen and receiving physiotherapy treatment. The last CNR provided is dated March 14, 2024 where the applicant notes that he may have reinjured his right shoulder while sleeping and he was diagnosed with patellar enthesitis. Naproxen was prescribed.
25I further find that the letter from Dr. Sun, dated March 18, 2023, supports that the applicant suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and notes that the applicant is unable to use his right arm and shoulder in an effective manner.
26I find that the applicant continued to make consistent complaints about his right shoulder, neck and low back pain to the s. 44 assessors. In addition, his physical complaints were noted in Dr. Steiner’s psychological assessment report and progress report. While Dr. Steiner is not qualified to assess the applicant’s physical impairments, the complaints made are consistent with those made to other medical assessors.
27The respondent relies on the reports of its s. 44 assessors in denying the applicant entitlement to an IRB. I find upon review of the IE Functional Capacity Evaluation report of Dr. Holland, chiropractor, dated February 24, 2023, that Dr. Holland notes that the applicant demonstrated deficits as compared to his pre-accident employment. He concluded based on the results of functional testing, that the applicant’s overall demonstrated functional ability is classified as Sedentary Physical Demand Characteristics. The applicant demonstrated carrying at the sedentary strength demand and his job demand is light. He demonstrated reaching forward on the left at the occasional pace and the job demand is frequent. Dr. Holland did not make a determination as to whether the applicant suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and deferred to the concurrent assessors. I find that despite the findings of Dr. Holland, the respondent did not refer to this report in its letter to the applicant dated March 1, 2023 as a reason for its denial of the applicant’s IRBs. There is no reference to the fact that Dr. Holland found that the applicant demonstrated deficits as compared to his pre-accident employment, which would support the applicant’s entitlement to an IRB. While Dr. Tabloie notes that he reviewed Dr. Holland’s report and provides a summary of the findings, there is no mention of the findings in his conclusions.
28I find upon review of the IE Orthopaedic Surgery report of Dr. Tabloie, dated February 24, 2023, that the applicant reported neck pain, right shoulder pain, and low back pain. Dr. Tabloie deferred further comments until he reviewed the medical imaging tests completed of the applicant’s right shoulder and right sternoclavicular joint.
29I find upon review of the IE Neurological report of Dr. Nagib Yahmad, dated February 24, 2023, Dr. Yahmad notes that from a strict physical neurological perspective, there is no specific neurological diagnosis or impairment that was detected. Dr. Yahmad states that the applicant did not complain of any cognitive difficulties or memory problems or headaches. He found no hard objective evidence of myelopathy, plexopathy, active ongoing radiculopathy or neuropathy. He states that the while the applicant complained of neck pain, right shoulder pain and upper and lower back pain, these are not neurologic in nature and further comments will be deferred to the concurrent musculoskeletal assessor.
30I find upon review of Dr. Mandel’s file review report, dated February 24, 2023, that based on her diagnosis of the applicant in her assessment on October 26, 2022, that the applicant suffered specific isolated phobia (vehicular). As a result of this diagnosis, the applicant was removed from the MIG. She concluded in her report that the diagnosed psychological condition is not of a breadth and severity to prevent the applicant from performing his pre-accident job tasks.
31On March 1, 2023, the respondent provided the applicant with the s. 44 reports completed by Dr. Yahmad, Dr. Mandel and Dr. Tabloie, and advised that his IRB would be stopped effective April 1, 2023. The respondent requested his right shoulder and right sternoclavicular joint imaging results for review and consideration. On June 5, 2023, the respondent advised that an Addendum report would be prepared by Dr. Tabloie.
32Dr. Tabloie’s Addendum report, dated July 25, 2023, notes that he has not been provided with the applicant’s right sternoclavicular joint imaging report or the CNRs from his treating orthopaedic surgeon. Therefore, he concluded that his opinion in his report dated February 24, 2023, remains unchanged. He deferred further comments until the documents were available for his review.
33Dr. Tabloie completed a second Addendum report, dated May 7, 2024. A copy of the CNRs of Dr. Sun were provided for his review. Dr. Tabloie states that the MRI of the right shoulder dated July 18, 2023 had abnormal findings. He further states that the applicant’s reported symptoms were not explainable with the abnormal findings in the right shoulder MRI report. He concludes that from a strictly orthopaedic perspective that he is not able to determine whether the applicant suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment. I find that Tabloie has not elaborated on why the MRI findings are abnormal. He simply concludes that he is not able to determine whether the applicant suffers a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment. Therefore, little weight can be given to Dr. Tabloie’s report because he says he cannot make a finding. Therefore, I find that Dr. Tabloi’s opinion does not support the termination of the applicant’s IRBs.
34I find that while Dr. Yahmad found that there was no neurological impairment, he deferred further comment to the concurrent musculoskeletal assessor. Similarly, Dr. Holland also deferred comment to the concurrent assessors. Therefore, neither made a conclusive opinion as to whether the applicant suffers a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment. Both deferred to Dr. Tabloie, who also was unable to reach an opinion. Therefore, there was no definitive opinion from the IE assessors from a physical perspective that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment.
35I accept that at the time of termination of his IRBs, the applicant suffered from chronic pain and functional limitations that prevented him from returning to work, which is supported by the CNRs of Dr. Sun. I find that the MRI report confirmed that the applicant suffered a right shoulder impairment. The applicant continued to report his functional limitations and inability to return to work thereafter. I further find that there was no conclusive opinion from Dr. Tabloie that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.
36As I have found that the applicant is entitled to an IRB based on his physical impairments, it is unnecessary for me to address whether he suffers a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks based on his psychological impairments.
37For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to an IRB from May 1, 2023 to date and ongoing.
Entitlement to Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits
38To receive payment for a treatment 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 that the goals of treatment are reasonable, how the goals would be met to a reasonable degree and that the overall costs of achieving them are reasonable.
Entitlement to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy treatment dated April 11, 2022
39I find that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy services, dated April 11, 2022.
40The applicant claims entitlement to $3,622.31 for chiropractic and massage therapy treatment, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre, in a treatment plan dated April 11, 2022. The treatment plan recommends 21 chiropractic sessions and 18 massage therapy sessions. The goals of the treatment plan are pain reduction, increase in strength, increase range of motion, return to activities of normal living, and return to pre-accident work activities.
41The respondent submits that the treatment plan, dated April 11, 2022, was denied by letter dated April 18, 2022, because no OCF-23 was received. The applicant subsequently submitted his OCF-23 on April 21, 2022, and treatment was approved up to $2,200.00. The respondent therefore submits that as it approved the OCF-23, this treatment plan is not payable.
42Section 38(5) of the Schedule provides that an insurer may refuse to accept a treatment and assessment plan if the plan describes goods and services to be received or an assessment or examination to be conducted in respect of any period during with the insured person is entitled to receive goods and services under the MIG in respect of the impairment. Pursuant to s. 38(6), an insurer’s refusal to accept a treatment and assessment plan under subsection (5) is final and is not subject to review.
43I find that the applicant was in the MIG when he submitted the disputed treatment plan. When subject to the MIG, insureds are required to submit treatment through OCF-23s – and not OCF-18s, in order to access the initial block of treatment funding. This legislative prohibition is designed to ensure that insureds exhaust the funding in the MIG or are removed from the MIG before receiving treatment beyond the $3,500.00 limit. I find that at the time the applicant submitted the treatment plan in dispute, he was in the MIG and he had not incurred any of the MIG limits. He was therefore required to first submit an OCF-23.
44I find that as the applicant submitted an OCF-23 subsequent to his submission of the April 11, 2022 treatment plan, and the OCF-23 was approved by the respondent up to $2,200.00, this treatment plan is a duplication of services. I therefore do not find that the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy dated April 11, 2022.
Entitlement to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy dated September 21, 2022
45I find that the applicant is entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, dated September 21, 2022.
46The applicant claims entitlement to $1,525.84 for chiropractic and massage therapy treatment proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre, in the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022. The treatment plan recommends 8 chiropractic sessions and 8 massage therapy sessions.
47The applicant submitted a treatment plan dated August 12, 2022, recommending 11 sessions chiropractic treatment and 11 sessions of massage therapy, in the amount of $2,023.03. Subsequently, he also submitted the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022. The respondent denied both treatment plans and submitted them for a s. 44 assessment with Dr. Tabloie.
48The IE report of Dr. Tabloie, dated February 24, 2023, determined that the applicant’s injuries appeared to be soft tissue in nature, but he wanted to review the medical records and medical imaging of the orthopaedic surgeon the applicant was visiting. His opinion was deferred until those records were received. Upon receipt of those records, Dr. Tabloie prepared an Addendum report dated June 6, 2024. He opined that strictly from an orthopaedic perspective, and relying on the MRI reports and all other evidence, that the treatment plan dated August 22, 2022 was deemed reasonable and necessary. However, the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022 was not considered reasonable and necessary. Based on these findings, the respondent approved the treatment plan dated August 22, 2022 and denied the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022.
49The applicant submits that the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022 was reasonable and necessary. The applicant submits that he required the treatment recommended to address his persistent chronic pain and restricted mobility. The treatments proposed were essential for recovery and align with the evidence from the clinical evaluations and diagnostic imaging. The treatment plans were developed based on ongoing assessments and the applicant’s lack of progress with initial therapies. The applicant relies upon the CNRs of Dr. Sun which document his ongoing pain and physical mobility issues.
50I find that the applicant has proven entitlement to the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022 for the following reasons.
51I find the CNRs of Dr. Sun support that the applicant continued to report ongoing pain and impairments as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. I further find that multiple recommendations were made by Dr. Sun for the applicant to pursue physical treatment. The applicant continued to attend for the treatment, despite the denial of the treatment plans.
52I give little weight to the Addendum report of Dr. Tabloie, dated June 6, 2024. I find that Dr. Tabloie approved the August 22, 2022 treatment plan as reasonable and necessary but denied the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022. His reasoning was that the September 21, 2022 treatment plan “offers fewer sessions of similar treatments and therefore would not be considered reasonable and necessary”. It notes that the applicant continued to receive physical rehabilitation at the same facility until April 2023, that is well beyond the dates that the treatment plans in dispute were proposed. I find that Dr. Tabloie’s opinion to deny the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022 is not supported by any medical reasoning. While he found that the August 22, 2022 treatment plan was reasonable based on the records, he gave no supportive basis for his conclusions to deny the September 21, 2022 treatment plan submitted a month later for similar treatment. I further find the fact that he acknowledges that the applicant continued to attend for treatment until April 2023, well past the date of the submission of the treatment plans in dispute, further supports that the applicant required the treatment and it was necessary for his ongoing rehabilitation.
53For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022 for chiropractic sessions and massage therapy sessions, is reasonable and necessary.
Interest
54Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. As I have found that the applicant is entitled to IRBs and the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022, interest is payable pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule.
Award
55The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664. Under s. 10, the Tribunal may grant an award of up to 50 percent of the total benefits payable if it finds that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits.
56The applicant submits that he is entitled to an award due to the respondent’s bad faith, marked by unreasonable delays and reliance on its own reports while ignoring key medical evidence. The applicant argues that the respondent’s selective reliance on its s. 44 reports, while disregarding supporting documentation from the applicant’s practitioners, demonstrates bath faith. He further argues that this conduct, compounded by the inconsistency within the respondent’s own reports, warrants an award. He relies upon the Tribunal decisions in Applicant v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 CanLII 101649 (ON LAT) and Malitsky v. Unica Insurance Inc., 2020 CanLII 12718 (ON LAT) where the Tribunal ordered an award.
57The respondent submits that the CCRO required the applicant to provide particulars of the claim for an award 30 days after the adjuster log notes were sent to the applicant. The respondent provided the applicant with the log notes on May 10, 2024, meaning the 30 days lapsed on April 10, 2024. The respondent submits that as the applicant has not provided any particulars of the special award to date, his submissions with respect to an award should be disregarded by the Tribunal for failure to comply with the CCRO. The respondent further submits that the applicant has failed to provide evidence of unreasonably withheld benefits, and it has acted reasonably and in good faith in adjusting the claim based on the available medical evidence and based on the opinions of the s. 44 assessors.
58I find that the applicant failed to provide the particulars of the s. 10 award in compliance with the CCRO. In the Divisional Court decision in Waldock v. State Farm Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 6105 (“Waldock”), at the initial hearing a special award was granted by the arbitrator even though an award had not been included as an issue in dispute in any of the pre-hearing documents. The Court found that the arbitrator had inherent discretion to award a special award and that a special award is “always a possibility if the arbitrator finds that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits”. The Court also found that procedural fairness was not denied, since the respondent had opportunities to make submissions on the issue.
59Applying the reasoning in Waldock, I find that despite the late disclosure of the award particulars, that it is not a breach of procedural fairness to consider the applicant’s claim for a s. 10 award. I find that the respondent had, and exercised, its opportunity to provide responding written submissions on the issue of a s. 10 award.
60However, I find that the applicant has not proven entitlement to an award. I find that just because I have found that the respondent was incorrect in its denial of the applicant’s IRB entitlement and the treatment plan dated September 21, 2022, it does not automatically entitle the applicant to an award. An insurer is not held to a standard of perfection, but rather, it should be held to a standard of reasonableness. The purpose of an award is to make an insurer accountable for misconduct and to deter it and others from future similar actions.
61I find that the case law has established that an award should be granted only where there is unreasonable behaviour by an insurer in withholding or delaying payments, which can be seen as excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding or immoderate.
62I find that the respondent was entitled to rely on the opinions of its assessors in the IE reports in denying the applicant’s entitlement to the benefits in dispute. I find that the respondent continually adjusted the applicant’s claim and made ongoing requests for documentation. Following receipt of the updated documentation, it completed Addendum reports to assess the documentation. I therefore do not find that the applicant has proven that the respondent’s behaviour was excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding or immoderate.
63For the reasons outlined above, I do not find that the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to an award.
ORDER
64For the reasons outlined above, I find that:
i. The applicant is entitled to an IRB in the amount of $255.54 per week for the period from May 1, 2023 to date and ongoing, plus interest;
ii. The applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, dated April 11, 2022;
iii. The applicant is entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, dated September 21, 2022, plus interest; and
iv. The respondent is not liable to pay an award.
Released: January 7, 2026
Melanie Malach
Adjudicator```