Citation: Jackman v. Definity Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-001872/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-001872/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:

Lillian Jackman

Applicant

And

Definity Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Estella Muyinda

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Bianca Marinescu, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Yuliya Yarema, Paralegal

HEARD:

By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Lillian Jackman, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on March 4, 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, Definity 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. Are the applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”) limit?

2. Is the applicant entitled to the services proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre, as follows:

(a) $225.77 ($1,300.00 less $1074.23 approved) for chiropractic services, in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated September 30, 2022?

(b) $2,023.03 for chiropractic services, in a plan dated November 14, 2022?

(c) $1,525.84 for chiropractic services, in a plan dated December 23, 2022?

3. Is the applicant entitled to the assessments proposed by A&B Medical Assessments Inc, as follows:

(a) $2,486.00 for a neurological assessment, in a plan dated April 5, 2023?

(b) $2,486.00 for a chronic pain assessment, in a plan dated August 16, 2023?

4. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?

5. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

3I noted a discrepancy in the CCRO issue, 3 ii(a) concerning the balance for chiropractic services in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated September 30, 2022. I have corrected the balance to accurately reflect the actual amount of $225.77 ($1,300.00 less $1074.23 approved).

RESULT

4The applicant has met her onus of proving that her accident-related injuries warrant removal from the MIG.

5The applicant is entitled to $225.77 ($1,300.00 less $1074.23 approved) for chiropractic services.

6The applicant is entitled to $2,023.03 for chiropractic services.

7The applicant is entitled to $1,525.84 for chiropractic services.

8The applicant is entitled to $2,486.00 for a neurological assessment.

9The applicant is entitled to $2,486.00 for a chronic pain assessment.

10The applicant is not entitled to an award under O. Reg 664.

11The applicant is entitled to payment of interest on overdue benefits pursuant to s.51 of the Schedule.

PROCEEDURAL ISSUE

12Upon review of the evidence before me, I requested the parties to submit the treatment plan dated August 16, 2023, as the applicant had not done so; however, the respondent had submitted a response pertaining to the treatment plan. Additionally, the treatment plan was referenced in the s.44 Insurer Examination report by Dr. Mohamed Lamine, general physician, dated March 6, 2024. The treatment plan was submitted to the Tribunal on February 23, 2026.

ANALYSIS

Application of the Minor Injury Guideline

13I find that the applicant has a chronic pain condition because of the accident and warrants removal from the MIG.

14Section 18(1) of the Schedule provides that medical and rehabilitation benefits are limited to $3,500.00 if the insured person sustains impairments that are predominantly a minor injury. Section 3(1) defines a “minor injury” as “one or more of a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and includes any clinically associated sequelae to such an injury.”

15An insured person may be removed from the MIG if they can establish that their accident-related injuries fall outside of the MIG, or, under s.18(2), that they have a documented pre-existing condition combined with compelling medical evidence stating that the condition precludes recovery from any accident-related minor injury if they are kept within the MIG confines. The Tribunal has also determined that chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition may warrant removal from the MIG.

16In all cases, the burden of proof in establishing removal from the MIG lies with the applicant.

Chronic Pain

17The applicant submits that she should be removed from the MIG because she has sustained a chronic pain condition because of the accident that is not captured by the definition of a “minor injury” and, as such, warrants treatment beyond the MIG limits.

18The respondent asserts that the applicant failed to establish a chronic pain disorder and any demonstrable functional impairment. The respondent submits that the applicant should remain in the MIG as she has failed to show on a balance of probabilities that her injuries fall outside of the MIG.

19The applicant submits that following the accident, she was treated by Dr. Rajun Zhang, family physician. Four months after the accident, Dr. Zhang, referred the applicant to Dr. Khashayar Khoshmasharab, chiropractor, who when completing the Disability Certificate (OCF-3) dated July 13, 2022, diagnosed the applicant as suffering from strain of cervical spine/thoracic spine, sprain and strain of shoulder joint, headaches, and post concussion syndrome, as a result of the accident.

20The applicant asserts that Dr. Zhang’s clinical notes and records (CNR) dating from November 2, 2022, to December 8, 2023, reveal that she complained of her right foot giving away, limping for a week, and frozen feeling, numbness in both feet, left shoulder pain, and vertigo.

21The applicant was referred to get x-rays of her feet and ankle and left shoulder. Results of the Xray revealed that the applicant had no significant abnormality visualized on x-ray of the ankles. However, the applicant had decreased range of motion of the shoulder flexion and internal rotation, and she was still feeling pain, numbness in the foot. Dr. Zhang referred the applicant to s.25, assessor, Dr. Osama Benmoftah, orthopedic surgeon, and chronic pain specialist as she continues to experience persistent shoulder pain, leg pain, foot pain, and back pain since the accident.

22The applicant submits that Dr. Benmoftah diagnosed her with a chronic pain disorder and relies on Dr. Benmoftah’s chronic pain assessment report dated October 6, 2023. The applicant states that the orthopaedic chronic pain assessment report establishes that she meets at least four out of six criteria of the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides for chronic pain.

23The respondent submits that the applicant has not been diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome by any of her treating physicians. However, I do not agree with the respondent’s position. I find that the applicant is not required to be solely diagnosed by their treating physician to establish chronic pain, because the diagnosis may be made by any qualified physician or assessor. Based on the evidence, I find that the applicant was diagnosed with chronic pain by Dr. Benmoftah a chronic pain specialist.

24The respondent asserts that the foot complaints made by the applicant are attributable to unrelated neuropathy. The respondent infers that the applicant’s injuries are a result of age-related degenerative changes and do not constitute a chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

25The respondent relies on the s.44 insurer’s examination report of Dr. Mohamed Lamine, general physician, dated February 08, 2023. Dr. Lamine opined that from a musculoskeletal perspective, the applicant’s accident-related injuries fall within the MIG. Dr. Lavine is of the view that the applicant’s accident-related injuries had healed, and any persistent symptoms were not attributable to the accident. Additionally, in his assessment, Dr. Lamine opines that the applicant does not provide evidence that points to having a pre-existing condition and therefore, she remains in the MIG.

26Upon review, I place less weight on Dr. Lamine’s opinion since the applicant’s submission is based on her experience of a chronic pain rather than a pre-existing condition which Dr. Lamine opined upon. Thus, I find that the applicant seeks to be removed from the MIG because of a chronic condition not a pre-existing condition. As a result, I place more weight on Dr. Benmoftah’s opinion which points to the applicant’s ongoing experiences of chronic pain and functional impairment.

27Further, Dr. Benmoftah opines that despite conventional interventions, the applicant experienced minimal improvement and continues to suffer from persistent pain since the accident. He opines that the applicant must receive adequate, aggressive, comprehensive, multimodal treatment and rehabilitation, to avoid the risk of having long-term functional impairments. Based on Dr. Benmoftah’s opinion, I am persuaded that the applicant’s chronic pain is continuing.

28Additionally, the applicant’s evidence is corroborated by Dr. Vincenzo Santo Basile (neuromuscular neurologist, electromyographer, stroke specialist, concussion specialist). Dr. Basile opines that the musculoskeletal soft-tissue injuries were a source of the applicant’s pain. Further, Dr. Basile opines that it is likely the applicant has developed chronic pain syndrome with central sensitization. Thus, I find that the applicant’s injuries are not a result of age-related degenerative changes, rather, the injuries are a result of the accident. Accordingly, I find that the ongoing nature of the applicant’s chronic pain resulting from the accident is established by the opinions of Dr. Basile and Dr. Benmoftah.

The AMA Guidelines

29While not incorporated into the Schedule, the Tribunal has found that the AMA Guides’ criteria for evaluating a chronic pain condition are a useful analytical tool. In the present case, I find that the AMA Guides would be beneficial to my analysis, because Dr. Benmoftah’s chronic pain assessment report holds information that help to substantiate whether the applicant suffers from chronic pain with functional impairment.

30The AMA Guides state that a person must meet at least three of six criteria to support a diagnosis of chronic pain. These criteria are:

i. Use of prescription drugs beyond the recommended duration and/or abuse of or dependence on prescription drugs or other substances.

ii. Excessive dependence on health care providers, spouse, or family.

iii. Secondary physical deconditioning due to disuse and/or fear-avoidance of physical activity due to pain.

iv. Withdrawal from social milieu, including work, recreation, or other social contracts.

v. Failure to restore pre-injury function after a period of disability, such that the physical capacity is insufficient to pursue work, family, or recreational needs.

vi. Development of psychosocial sequelae after the initial incident, including anxiety, fear-avoidance, depression, or nonorganic illness behaviours.

31The Applicant submits that she meets at least four criteria of the six criteria of the AMA Guidelines, particularly criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5. The applicant submits that she relies on Dr. Benmoftah chronic pain assessment that was completed in order to determine whether she suffers from chronic pain and to gauge her standing for a multidisciplinary pain management program.

32The respondent submits that the applicant has not been diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome by any treating physician. Thus, the respondent asserts that the applicant has failed to meet her evidentiary onus to establish that she experiences chronic pain as a result of her accident-related impairments fall outside of the scope of the MIG. Additionally, the respondent argues that the applicant has functionally recovered from her injuries.

33Upon review, I disagree with the respondent’s assertion that there is no diagnosis of chronic pain. I find that Dr. Benmoftah diagnosed the applicant with chronic pain disorder. Additionally, Dr. Benmoftah opined that the applicant met AMA Guides criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5. Further, I am persuaded by Dr. Benmoftah’s diagnosis of chronic pain because he recommends that the applicant participate in a multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment program.

34The applicant asserts that she satisfies criterion 2, because following the accident, she was taking prescription medication that included pain killers and muscle relaxants. Subsequently, she began using over the counter nonsteroidal medications. To support her claim, the applicant relies on Dr. Benmoftah’s who opines in his report dated October 6, 2023, that the applicant currently takes over-the-counter pain medication as needed and regularly visits her family physician, Dr. Zhang.

35The respondent submit that the applicant did not require prescription medication, and she has not provided evidence to support that she had prescription medication for her pain.

36I find that the applicant satisfies criterion 2 because as opined by Dr. Benmoftah, she continues to rely on over-the-counter pain medication to alleviate her pain resulting from the accident and she has consistent and ongoing follow up visits with her family Dr. Zhang.

37The applicant states that she meets criterion 3 because she works through her pain to manage lighter household responsibilities such as light meal preparation, dusting, and dishwashing.

38I find that Dr. Benmoftah’s opinion supports the applicant’s claim that she meets criterion 3 because he opines that the applicant continues to suffer from multiple impairments that hinder her ability to perform heavy housekeeping, maintenance tasks, and engaging in recreational sporting activities, thus, significantly affecting her personal and social life.

39Accordingly, I find that the applicant has established that she experienced secondary deconditioning as a result of the accident.

40The applicant asserts that she meets criterion 4 because since the accident she is confined to her home. She is no longer socially active, neither visiting nor hosting friends, traveling, or going for long walks.

41The applicant relies on Dr. Basile opinion to assert that she meets criterion 3. In his report dated May 16, 2023, Dr. Basile opines that since the accident, the applicant has lost her motivation and is no longer able to actively participate in social and recreation activities due to her pain and physical limitations, which has also contributed to her stress and anxiety. Further, the applicant relies on Dr. Benmoftah report where in he opines that the applicant has not resumed her pre-accident recreational activities and is likely to face challenges in activities involving prolonged walking, standing, squatting, or bending.

42Based on the evidence from Dr. Basile and Dr. Benmoftah, I find that the applicant has established that her physical capacity is insufficient to pursue work, family, or recreational needs, therefore she meets criterion 4 of the AMA Guide.

43The applicant asserts that she meets criterion 5, because she requires assistance to complete tasks such as showering, bathing, grooming, and dressing since the accident.

44The applicant relies on Dr. Benmoftah’s opinion to support her claim that she meets criterion 5. In his report, Dr. Benmoftah opines that due to the debilitating effects of her injuries the applicant finds it difficult to complete self-care tasks. Dr. Benmoftah, opines that the applicant manages her personal care with significant effort, employing pacing and adaptive techniques. Furthermore, Dr. Basile opines that the applicant continues to suffer from multiple impairments from the accident and as a result she has not returned to her pre-accident recreational activities.

45Based on the foregoing, I find that the applicant meets criterion 5 because she is not restored to pre-injury function as indicated in Dr. Benmoftah’s opinion.

Functional Impairment

46The applicant submits that she experiences persistent shoulder pain, leg pain, foot pain, and back pain since the accident. The applicant claims that the injuries she sustained profoundly impacted her ability to function. The applicant submitted that Dr. Khoshmashrab, chiropractor concluded that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and an inability to perform the housekeeping and home maintenance services as a result of the accident.

47Additionally, in the report dated October 6, 2023, Dr. Benmoftah opines that the applicant continues to face numerous limitations, impairments, and physical disabilities that significantly curtail her ability to perform daily activities. Dr. Benmoftah states that the applicant experiences persistent pain in multiple areas, which has been continuous since the accident, and her psychological challenges have extended beyond the typical expected recovery period. Further, Dr. Benmoftah opines that the applicant’s pain symptoms have prevented her from regaining her pre-accident level of functioning, signifying the development of chronic pain that is expected to persist and result in ongoing functional limitations in the future.

48The respondent asserts that the applicant has not demonstrated any disability or functional limitation in her daily life resulting from an accident-related injury. It is on that basis that the respondent asserts that the applicant has not established a chronic pain disorder or demonstrated functional impairment.

49I find that the applicant has established on a balance of probabilities that she experiences chronic pain with a functional impairment sufficient to warrant removal from the MIG. I am basing my finding upon the contemporaneous corroborated evidence of Dr. Basile and Dr. Benmoftah both of whom confirm that the applicant has a chronic pain condition, which affects her functional ability. Therefore, I find the applicant has established she suffers from chronic pain with a functional impairment resulting from her accident-related injuries.

50Accordingly, I find that the applicant sustained a chronic condition as a result of the accident warranting her removal from the MIG.

51To receive payment for a treatment and assessment plan under s. 15 and s. 16 of the Schedule, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that the benefit is reasonable and necessary because 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.

52The purpose of an assessment is to determine whether a condition exists. For an insured, they bear the onus to demonstrate that there are grounds on which to believe that a condition exists that would warrant further investigation by way of an assessment.

$225.77 ($1,300.00 less $1074.23 approved) for chiropractic services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre in a treatment plan dated September 30, 2022.

53I find that the applicant is entitled to the remaining $225.77 with respect to this treatment plan.

54The goals of the treatment plan were pain reduction, increased range of motion, increase in strength and increased range of motion. The functional goals were to return to activities of normal living and to return to modified work activities.

55The applicant submits that her chiropractic care amongst other treatment was beneficial to her in temporarily reducing the overall intensity of her symptoms, but she continues to suffer from pain. The applicant reported to Dr. Basile that she continues to require therapy for the injuries she has sustained.

56The respondent submits that the treatment plan is not reasonable and necessary because the applicant has sustained minor injuries in the accident and that she has completed treatment within the MIG.

57Upon review, I find Dr. Basile’s opinion persuasive because he recommends that the applicant continue with her physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment as it will assist the applicant in her recovery. Dr. Basile recommends that the therapy be administered at least 2-3 times per week to maximize the applicant’s chances of improvement from the primary musculoskeletal/soft tissue injuries. Additionally, I find Dr. Basile’s evidence compelling because he substantiates the applicant’s claim that she experiences ongoing pain.

58It is on that basis that I find that at the time the treatment plan was submitted, in the few months after the accident, it was reasonable and necessary for the applicant to receive chiropractic services in order to try to achieve the goals of the treatment plan. I find that the cost of the treatment plan was proportional to the proposed goals.

59Accordingly, I find that the treatment plan is reasonable and necessary.

$2,023.03 for chiropractic services proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre in a treatment plan dated November 16, 2022.

60I find that the applicant is entitled to this treatment plan.

61In this treatment plan Dr. Khoshmashrab listed the following injuries: sprain and strain of cervical spine, sprain and strain of thoracic spine, sprain and strain of shoulder joint, headache, and post-concessional syndrome.

62The treatment plan proposed 36 sessions in 6 weeks. The goals of the treatment plan are pain reduction, increase in strength and increase range of motion. The functional goals are to return to activities of normal living and a return to modified work activities. In this treatment plan, Dr. Khoshmashrab states that the applicant continues to have pain and limitations with her cervical and shoulder ranges.

63The applicant submits that she received various treatments including chiropractic services. The applicant states that the chiropractic treatments were to help her achieve her goals of recovery from the injuries resulting from the accident, therefore they were reasonable and necessary.

64The respondent submits that the treatment plans are not payable because the applicant has not established that her accident-related injuries fall outside the MIG. To deny the treatment plans for chiropractic services, the respondent relies on the opinion of Dr. Lamine to say that the three chiropractic treatments were not reasonable or necessary as the applicant’s soft tissue injury had resolved.

65As well, the respondent denied this treatment plan on the basis that Dr. Khoshmashrab’s assessment of the applicant with postconcussional syndrome as one of the applicant’s injuries was out of the scope of a practice for a chiropractor. I agree with the respondent that a diagnosis of a postconcussional syndrome is outside the scope of a chiropractor.

66However, this assessment does not centre on the postconcussional syndrome; there are other injuries that Dr. Khoshmashrab listed. Additionally, I find that the proposed goods and services as indicated in the treatment plan were for the assessment of the total body, exercise manipulation, and therapy of multiple body sights. The listed injuries are within the scope of Dr. Khoshmashrab’s speciality as a chiropractor, except for the postconcussional syndrome.

67Accordingly, as I do not accept the respondent’s argument. I find the treatment plan is reasonable and necessary.

$1,525.84 for chiropractic services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre in a plan dated December 23, 2022.

68I find that the applicant is entitled to this treatment plan.

69The treatment plan proposed 27 sessions in 6 weeks. The goals of the treatment plan are pain reduction, increase in strength and increased range of motion. The functional goals include return to activities of normal living and a return to modified work activities.

70The proposed goods and services as indicated in the treatment plan were for the assessment of the total body, exercise manipulation, and therapy of multiple body sights.

71The respondent asserts that the treatment plan is not reasonable and necessary as the applicant’s injuries are captured by the MIG.

72The applicant relies on the report by Dr. Basile dated May 16, 2023, where in he recommended that the applicant continue with the chiropractic treatment. Dr. Basile was of the opinion that the chiropractic treatment will assist the applicant in her recovery. I am persuaded by Dr. Basile’s opinion because it supports the applicant’s plan to meet the goals for treatment.

73Accordingly, I find the treatment plan is reasonable and necessary.

$2,486.00 for a neurological assessment, proposed by A&B Medical Assessments Inc., in a plan dated April 5, 2023.

74I find that the applicant is entitled to this treatment plan.

75The treatment plan proposes two sessions in one week. The goal of the treatment plan is pain reduction, and the functional goals are a return to activities of normal living and a return to pre-accident work activities.

76The applicant submits that she was diagnosed with a neurological impairment and postconcusive syndrome with a protracted course by Dr. Moises Simoes Maria, neurologist. The applicant also acknowledges Dr. Marias recommendation for additional investigations to rule out peripheral neuropathy, noting that test results may indicate the classification of the applicant’s condition as idiopathic peripheral neuropathy.

77The respondent submits that the neurologists who assessed the applicant did not diagnose her with a neurological impairment related to the accident. Therefore, there is no indication that the applicant experienced a neurological impairment related to the accident. Accordingly, the respondent asserts that it is neither reasonable nor necessary for the applicant to undergo a neurological evaluation in the absence of any accident-related evaluation.

78The applicant asserts that she was diagnosed with a neurological impairment as a result of the accident by Dr. Kristie Srichaikul, family physician.

79Upon review, I find that Dr. Srichaikul’s CNR dated November 22, 2022, reveals that the applicant’s limp, right foot weakness, dizziness, imbalance, and numbness in her feet are attributable to the accident. Furthermore, I find that the applicant’s frequent and consistent reporting of ongoing pain in her neck, shoulder, and feet to her family physician since the accident reveal that an assessment is reasonable and necessary.

80Also, the applicant relies on Dr. Basile’s opinion to submit that the neurological assessment is reasonable and necessary to determine if there is any accident-related neurological impairment.

81The applicant submits that Dr. Basile statement that the applicant “does not meet the American Academy of Neurology.” was an oversight or an error because later in the report Dr. Basile opines that “the applicant has ongoing vertigo consistent with benign paroxysmal.…secondary to post-concussive syndrome.”

82I acknowledge the inconsistency identified in Dr. Basile report. However, I accept the applicant’s submission that Dr. Basile statement was made inadvertently because a review of the entire opinion reveals that the statement is not consistent with the remainder of the report. Therefore, I am persuaded by Dr. Basile’s opinion that there is evidence of neurological dysfunction and his recommendation of an assessment of the applicant.

83I find that a neurological assessment is reasonable and necessary as I am persuaded by Dr. Basile’s opinion and Dr. Srichaikul’s diagnosis of the applicant with a neurological impairment related to the accident. I find that it is appropriate that the applicant explore further through an assessment.

84Accordingly, I find the treatment plan reasonable and necessary.

$2,486.00 for a chronic pain assessment, proposed by A&B Medical Assessment Inc. in a plan dated August 16, 2023.

85I find that the applicant is entitled to this treatment plan.

86The goals of the treatment plan are pain reduction and increase in strength. The functional goals are to restore pre-injury functional capacity and to enable the applicant to return to activities of normal living. The proposed duration of the treatment plan is one week of assessment.

87The applicant submits that Dr. Benmoftah’s report dated October 6, 2023, reveals that he examined and diagnosed her with chronic pain disorder. Dr. Benmoftah recommended that the applicant participate in a multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment program.

88The respondent relies on Dr. Lamine’s report dated August 15, 2023, in which he opines that a chronic pain assessment is neither reasonable nor necessary because the applicant’s accident injuries had resolved.

89I am persuaded by the contemporaneous corroborating evidence from Dr. Benmoftah and Dr. Basile that the applicant relied upon to establish that she had chronic pain following the accident.

90Accordingly, I find that the applicant has demonstrated that this treatment plan is reasonable and necessary.

Interest

91I find that interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to section 51 of the Schedule. The applicant is entitled to interest in accordance with the Schedule on any overdue payment of benefits.

Award

92The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664. Under s. 10, the Tribunal may grant an award of up to 50 per cent of the total benefits payable if it finds that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits.

93The applicant submits that she is entitled to an award because the respondent failed to properly address all available medical documentation when determining whether the MIG applies.

94The respondent asserts that no award is payable because it relied on the medical documentation at hand and it adjusted the claim in a fair and reasonable manner.

95I find that the applicant has not explained why or pointed to any evidence to establish that she is entitled to an award.

96Accordingly, I find that the respondent is not liable to pay an award.

ORDER

97The applicant has met her onus of proving that her accident-related injuries warrant removal from the MIG.

98The applicant is entitled to $225.77 ($1,300.00 less $1074.23 approved) for chiropractic services.

99The applicant is entitled to $2,023.03 for chiropractic services.

100The applicant is entitled to $1,525.84 for chiropractic services.

101The applicant is entitled to $2,486.00 for a neurological assessment.

102The applicant is entitled to $2,486.00 for a chronic pain assessment.

103The applicant is not entitled to an award under O. Reg 664.

104The applicant is entitled to payment of interest on overdue benefits pursuant to s.51 of the Schedule.