Citation: Neudorf v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-003332/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-003332/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:

Elizabeth Neudorf

Applicant

and

Co-operators General Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

John Mazzilli

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Rebbecca Phillips, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Daniel M Himelfarb, Counsel

HEARD:

By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Elizabeth Neudorf, (the “applicant”), was involved in an automobile accident on August 9, 2020, 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, Co-operators General Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

2In this case the applicant alleges that the respondent denied her from treatment and assessments that are reasonable and necessary for her recovery from her accident-related injuries and because she believes that some of the treatment and assessment plans were improperly denied by the respondent, rendering them in breach of s.38(8) of the Schedule.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

1. Is the applicant entitled to the treatment plans/OCF-18s (“plans”) proposed by Ross Rehabilitation, as follows:

i. $3,241.76 for occupational therapy services, in a plan dated December 20, 2021.

ii. $6,200.00 for a vocational assessment, in a plan dated December 20, 2021?

iii. $2,200.00 for occupational therapy services, in a plan dated October 30, 2023; and

iv. $4,171.28 for case management services, in a plan dated October 27, 2023.

v. Is the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $1,671.81 per month from January 31, 2024, to date and ongoing?

vi. Is the applicant entitled to housekeeping and home maintenance benefits in the amount of $100.00 per week from April 9, 2022, to date and ongoing?

vii. Is the applicant entitled to housekeeping and mileage expenses in the amount of $1,960.68 submitted on an OCF-6 dated April 8, 2022?

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

RESULT

4The disputed treatment and assessment plans are not reasonable and necessary, and the respondent’s denials are in accordance with s.38.8(8).

5The applicant is not to attendant care benefits in the amount of $1,671.81 per month from January 31, 2024, and ongoing.

6The applicant is not entitled to housekeeping and home maintenance benefits in the amount of $100.00 per week from April 9, 2022, and ongoing.

7The applicant is not entitled to housekeeping and mileage expenses in the amount of $1,960.68 submitted on an OCF-6 dated April 8, 2022.

8As no benefits are owing, interest is not owing.

9The application is dismissed.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

Respondent’s written submissions

10On May 1, 2025, the respondent submitted its document brief and written submissions to the applicant in accordance with the Tribunal’s Notice of Hearing dated August 22,2024, however the Tribunal only received the respondent’s document brief and not its written submissions.

11On November 19, 2025, by way of e-mail the Tribunal notified the parties that the respondent’s written submissions had not been received by the Tribunal and requests the respondent notify the Tribunal if the written submissions were received by the applicant. The respondent provided an email sent to the applicant on May 1, 2025, which shows that its document brief and its submissions had been sent to the applicant in accordance with the Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) dated August 14, 2024, and the Notice of hearing.

12I accept the respondent’s e-mail which included its document brief and written submission as confirmation that the applicant did receive the respondent’s written submissions on May 1, 2025, and accordingly I find that there is no prejudice to the applicant given she received and did not dispute her receipt of the respondent’s written submissions on May 1, 2025, in accordance with the timeline set out in the CCRO and the Notice of Hearing.

Applicant’s document Brief

13During my deliberation, the applicant in her submissions referred to pages and tabs that did not exist in her document brief. The Tribunal received her document brief which was 229 pages in length.

14On November 24, 2025, the Tribunal by way of email requested the parties confirm the page length of the applicant’s document brief that had been disclosed to the respondent. By way of e-mail on November 25, 2025, the respondent advised the Tribunal that it had received the applicant’s document brief in accordance with the timelines set out in the CCRO and the Notice of Hearing, and that the applicant’s document brief was 478 pages in length.

15I accept the respondent’s e-mail of November 25, 2025 as confirmation that it received the applicant’s document brief of 478 pages in length on April 16, 2025 and accordingly there is no prejudice to the respondent as the entirety of the document brief was disclosed in accordance with the CCRO and the Notice of Hearing and I considered the applicant’s brief of 478 pages that was submitted to the Tribunal by the respondent in my deliberation.

ANALYSIS

The Law

16To receive payment for a treatment and assessment plan under sections 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.

17Section 38 of the Schedule sets out the rules of the submission of and response to treatment and assessment plans between the insured and the insurer. Section 38(8) reads that within 10 business days after it receives the treatment and assessment plan, the insurer shall give the insured person a notice that identifies the goods, services, assessments and examinations described in the treatment and assessment plan that the insurer agrees to pay for, any the insurer does not agree to pay for and the medical reasons and all of the other reasons why the insurer considers any goods, services, assessments and examinations, or the proposed costs of them, not to be reasonable and necessary.

$3,241.76 for occupational therapy services

18I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $3,241.76 for occupational therapy services because it is not reasonable and necessary.

19The applicant submits that the plan is reasonable and necessary because psychosocial barriers are a concern for her given that her psychological injuries overlay with her physical injuries. The plan’s goals are pain reduction and progressive goal attainment (which requires targeted treatment of psychosocial risk factors, activities including graded activity scheduling, goal setting and problem solving).

20The applicant submits that the s.44 assessor had improperly assessed the treatment plan as its IE assessors, assessed the applicant’s need for attendant care benefits (“ACB”) and an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) and that they did not comment on the disputed treatment plan for occupational therapy services. She argues that pain management and reduction is a reasonable goal for addressing functionality and that the respondent relied on flawed assessments in its denial. The applicant relies on a OCF-18 completed by Jenna Raabe, occupational therapist dated December 20, 2021.

21The respondent argues the applicant had received occupational therapy services in addition to other physical therapy modalities from previous treatment plans and that the applicant failed to establish why additional occupational therapy is reasonable and necessary beyond what has been approved and incurred. The respondent argues that its s.44 assessors opined that the applicant has reached maximum medical recovery such that further intervention would not be reasonable and necessary. The respondent relies on the report of Dr. Aladetoyinbo, psychiatrist dated March 31, 2022, and the report of Dr. Naaman, physiatrist, dated March 31, 2022.

22The OCF-18 was denied on March 21, 2022, pending s.44 assessments and the respondent upheld the denial on June 7, 2022, based on its multidisciplinary reports from Dr. Aladetoyinbo and Dr. Naaman.

23I prefer the multidisciplinary approach undertaken by the respondent given the wide range of goals set out in the treatment plan than that of the applicant’s sole medical expert, namely Jenna Raabe. I accept both assessors’ medical opinion that the applicant has reached maximum medical recovery from her accident-related injuries, accordingly the plan is not reasonable or necessary. While the disputed plan specifically was not assessed by the assessors as their focus was to opine on income replacement benefits (“IRBs”) and a Form-1 for attendant care, Dr. Naaman opined that the applicant has returned to work, she is driving, independent with her personal care and found no signs of ongoing physical impairment.

24Dr. Aladetoyinbo noted that “there is no current reported history indicating significantly excessive time and energy devoted solely to the management of pain. She provided answers to questions consistently, her rate of speech was normal and no signs suggestive of distress”. Dr. Aladetoyinbo further opines that the applicant’s observed symptom profile including occupational functioning suggest that she has attained maximum medical recovery.

25While pain management can be reasonable and necessary treatment, in this case I was not pointed to evidence that supports the effectiveness of pain relief treatment over a lengthy period that would show the goals are being met to a reasonable degree and warrant the continued funding for such services. Therefore, I accept the medical opinion of Dr. Aladetoyinbo and Dr. Naaman that the applicant has achieved maximal medical recovery and that further treatment beyond the treatment already provided and approved is not reasonable or necessary.

26I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $3,241.76 for occupational therapy because it is not reasonable and necessary.

$6,200.00 for a situational assessment, a functional capacity assessment and a vocational assessment.

27I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $6,200.00 for a situational, functional capacity and vocational assessments.

28The applicant submits and relies on an OCF-18 dated July 21, 2022, which recommends a situational assessment, a functional capacity assessment and a vocational assessment are reasonable and necessary because the assessments would have determined the applicant’s ability to perform her own occupation or any occupation for which she may be suited by education training or experience. The applicant submits that the assessments were critical to her gradual return to work. The applicant relies on the CNRs of Dr. Dockx the applicant’s family physician and the report of Dr. Rollins, physician, dated December 5, 2023.

29The respondent argues that the proposed assessments are duplicative and are not reasonable and necessary. It argues that the applicant had returned to work at the time of the denial of the proposed assessments and had received IRBs; however, the IRBs have been settled amongst the parties. It argues that the applicant’s family doctor did not recommend the assessments; rather, only the authors of the OCF-18s recommended the plans as advocates for the applicant.

30As the IRB claim has been resolved between the parties prior to this application and not an issue in dispute, I will not consider the relevant portions of the assessment plans in dispute related to the IRB.

31The contemporaneous medical evidence does not support the disputed assessments as being reasonable and necessary. The applicant returned to her pre-accident employment and the medical records show some modifications were required, i.e. day shifts as opposed to night shifts. The applicant further underwent a chronic pain assessment on December 5, 2023, with Dr. Rollins, physician due to her left leg pain. Dr. Rollins in her report continues to discuss workplace related exacerbation of her accident-related symptoms; however, Dr. Rollins and the applicant agree that anxiety, rather than pain, is limiting her ability to work full time hours.

32The OCF-18 was denied by the respondent August 4, 2022, prior to the CNRs of Dr. Rollins and after the applicant had returned to her pre-accident employment; however, the CNRs from Dr. Dockx and Dr. Rollins do not support the need for the proposed assessments as the applicant’s intentions were always to return to her pre-accident employment, and not a different employer or profession. The applicant’s current employer, The Corporation of Norfolk County, on September 22, 2020, confirmed that they have a robust return to work program including duties and shift modifications, accommodations for gradual return to work and a work hardening program, which further supports the disputed assessments as not being reasonable or necessary.

33I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $6,200.00 for a situational, functional capacity and vocational assessment.

$2,200.00 for an attendant care needs assessment

34I find on a balance of probabilities that $2,200.00 for an attendant care assessment is not reasonable or necessary.

35The applicant submits that the plan is reasonable and necessary because the insurer’s examination report of Mr. Tsuji recommended a reassessment of her status and identified that the applicant was still struggling with her accident-related injuries and impairments while attempting to return to work. The applicant submits that the updated medical records of her treatment team are ongoing and contemporaneous and that these records should be preferred to the outdated IE reports undertaken by the respondent.

36The respondent argues that this plan is not reasonable or necessary as at the time the plan was submitted, the applicant was employed and working as a personal support worker while claiming the need for the disputed attendant care assessment. It argues that the applicant had returned to work, was independent with self-care tasks and housekeeping. The respondent argues that there is no corroborating CNRs from a medical professional that warrant the plan as being reasonable or necessary.

37The applicant did not tender any contemporaneous medical evidence to support her claim to the assessment plan, therefore I accept the respondent’s denial of the assessment based on the three hour and fifteen minute in person attendant care needs assessment undertaken by Stewart Tsuji, and his opinion that the applicant does not require attendant care assistance because she demonstrates sufficient physical and function abilities to manage her own personal care, housework and also her employment as a PSW.

38I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $2,200.00 for an in-home attendant care assessment because it is not reasonable and necessary.

Denial letter

39The applicant submits that the respondent’s denial letter is in breach of s.38(8) because the disputed OCF-18 is requesting an updated attendant care assessment based on a deterioration of the applicant’s condition. The applicant submits that the denial letter is insufficient and confusing to an unsophisticated individual.

40The respondent argues that its denial letter is in accordance with s.38(8) of the Schedule as the letter is sufficiently clear and sets out the reasons for its denial with specific reference to the applicant’s return to work and the s.44 assessment of Mr. Tsuji.

41I find on a balance of probabilities that the respondent’s denial letter is in accordance with s.38(8) because the respondent’s denial letter contained clear and detailed reasons for its denial of the disputed assessment.

42The letter states that “it has been approximately 3 years since the motor vehicle accident of August 9, 2020, and further to our correspondence of April 14, 2022, you participated in a s.44 In-home assessment where it was determined that you were no longer eligible for the attendant care benefit based on the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident of August 9,2020.

43The letter further provides the assessor the respondent relies on and states:

“Based on a review of the in-home assessment completed by Mr. Tsuji, Occupational Therapist, he determined that you demonstrated sufficient physical and functional abilities to manage your own personal care and basic hygiene as required. Your attendant care benefit ceased as of April 14, 2022. In addition, based on a review of the information on file you continue to work 3 days per week approximately 8 hours per day as a PSW completing roughly 75-80% of your pre-accident duties. As such the request for an in-home attendant care assessment is not reasonable or necessary. Therefore, the OCF-18 is not payable.”

44In my view the respondent’s denial letter is in accordance with s.38(8) because the letter provides medical reasons as set out above from Mr. Tsuji’s assessment report and other reasons such as it has been 3 years since the accident and that the applicant had returned to work as PSW. The medical and other reasons provided are in manner that can be understood, and the letter further provides information for the applicant to dispute her claim.

45For the reasons above I find on a balance of probabilities that the respondents denial letter is in accordance with s.38(8) of the Schedule.

$4,171.28 for case management services

46I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $4,171.28 for case management services because it is not reasonable and necessary.

47The applicant submits that case management services are reasonable and necessary for her to effectively access and navigate the healthcare and rehabilitation systems necessary to assist her with recovery from her injuries and impairments. She submits that case management services are reasonable and necessary because it would provide results in temporary relief of pain and support in the restoration of her function. The applicant relies on the OCF-18 dated October 27, 2023, completed by Afsha Husain, occupational therapist.

48The respondent argues it approved case management services up to January 2022 and that the disputed case management services were denied because the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery approximately two years prior to the submission of the treatment plan. The respondent relies on the report of Dr. Aladetoyinbo, psychiatrist dated March 31, 2022, and the report of Dr. Naaman, physiatrist dated March 31, 2022.

49I find that the disputed treatment plan is not reasonable and necessary. When considering reasonableness and necessity of a treatment plan it is important to consider the goals of the treatment plan, which in this case are stated as “other”. While the applicant points to navigating the healthcare system and temporary relief of pain to support her function, I was not pointed to how this would be achieved in the goals of the treatment plan. While the applicant points to regression in her recovery, I was not pointed to contemporaneous evidence other than the OCF-18 to support her claim or how the plan would assist with her pain complaints.

50In addition, the applicant has not required case management for approximately two years prior to the submissions of the treatment plan. For these reasons I was persuaded and accept the respondent’s denial based on its multidisciplinary approach and I accept the opinion of Dr. Aladetoyinbo that the applicant has attained maximum medical recovery, from a psychological perspective and the opinion of Dr. Naaman that from a physical perspective the applicant has reached maximal medical recovery.

51I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $4,171.28 for case management services because it is not reasonable and necessary.

Denial Letter

52The applicant submits that respondent’s denial letter does not comply with s.38(8) because she submitted a treatment plan requesting the services of a case manager based on a deterioration of her condition and changes in circumstances. She submits that the denial does not address the deterioration and is insufficient and confusing to an unsophisticated individual.

53The respondent argues that the plan was properly denied on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery, and that the applicant had not required case management services for the previous two years.

54I find on a balance of probabilities that the respondent’s denial letter is in accordance with s.38(8) because the respondent’s denial letter contained clear and detailed reasons for its denial of the disputed assessment.

55The denial letter contains an abundance of medical and or other reasons for the denial, such as “It has been more nearly 3.5 years since the motor vehicle accident of August 9, 2020. On March 31, 2022, we received the completed Independent Medical Examination (IE) reports, which were provided to you with our response letters on April 14, 2022. Based on a review of the in-home assessment completed by Mr. Tsuji, Occupational Therapist, he determined that you demonstrated sufficient physical and functional abilities to manage your own personal care and basic hygiene as required.

56In addition, the letter informs the applicant that “Dr. Kehinde Aladetoyinbo, Psychiatrist, opined: The current observed symptom profile including occupational functioning suggest you have attained maximum medical recovery (MMR) from a psychological perspective. You independently drive your car to work. There are no further tests/diagnostic procedures recommended at this time with respect to accident-related impairments”.

57In my view the respondent’s denial letter is in accordance with s.38(8) because the letter provides clear medical reasons for its denial as set out above from Mr. Tsuji’s and Dr. Aladetoyinbo’s assessment report and other reasons such as it has been 3.5 years since the accident and that the applicant had returned to work as PSW. The medical and other reasons provided are in manner that can be understood, and the letter further provides information for the applicant to dispute her claim.

58I find on a balance of probabilities that the respondent’s denial letter is in accordance with s.38(8) because the respondent’s denial letter contained clear and detailed reasons for its denial of the disputed assessment.

$1,671.81 for attendant care benefits

59I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $1,671.81 for attendant care benefits because it is not reasonable and necessary.

60The applicant submits that in late 2023 she was struggling due to her physical and psychological injuries and was experiencing a deterioration and change of her condition and was unable to manage her attendant care needs while maintaining her employment. She relies on an updated Form-1 based on an In-home occupational therapy assessment and report dated February 2, 2024, by Ms. Husain, occupational therapist that addresses the applicant’s post accident decline in function, selfcare and reliance on family members to complete activities of daily living and housekeeping.

61The respondent argues that the applicant had increased her performance at work, having resumed full time in June 2022 and that she confirmed independence with self-care as well as some housekeeping tasks to the s.44 assessors. It argues that the applicant is independent with bathing, dressing, grooming, toileting, transferring, walking, climbing stairs, eating, housework, using her phone and managing medications. The respondent argues that the applicant reported more extensive functioning to its s.44 assessors, notwithstanding the fact that the assessments were 4 months apart. The respondent relies on the psychiatric report of Dr. Nagy, BSC. OT, psychiatrist dated April 30, 2024, the report of Dr. Naaman, physiatrist dated March 32, 2022, and the report of Dr. Aladetoyinbo, psychiatrist dated March 31, 2022.

62I find that the contemporaneous evidence does not support attendant care to be reasonable and necessary. The applicant continues to work as a personal support worker in a long-term care facility and by virtue of her employment is responsible for the care of others. While the reports of Ms. Husain and Dr. Nagy are consistent in that the applicant’s symptoms of fatigue, reduced energy levels, and physical tolerances and stamina due to chronic pain and PTSD, I am not pointed to the linkage from her complaints from her family doctor’s CNRs that warrant attendant care.

63This is further complicated by the degree of function reported by the applicant. Dr. Aladetoyinbo advised in his report that the applicant is independent with personal care and cooking. The physiatry report of Dr. Naaman confirms that the applicant is independent with bathing, dressing, grooming, toileting, transferring, walking, climbing stairs, eating, housework and managing her medications. In addition, the applicant advised Dr. Nagy that she can do laundry, vacuum, tend to chickens, collect chicken eggs and do chores in the barn.

64Finally, I was not pointed to evidence from the applicant that supports the attendant care benefits as being incurred, therefore in the absence of invoices from a qualified professional or a non-professional with an economic loss the respondent is not liable to pay for the disputed attendant care benefits.

65I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $1,671.81 for attendant care benefits because it is not reasonable and necessary.

$100.00 per week for housekeeping and home maintenance (“HKHM”)

66I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to HKHM services in the amount of $100.00 per week from April 14 and ongoing because it is not reasonable and necessary.

67The applicant submits HKHM in the amount of $100.00 per week was terminated by the respondent on April 14, 2022. She argues that the respondent improperly denied HKHM benefits because the respondent’s assessor Mr. Tsuji recommended the applicant continue to receive housekeeping assistance at a rate of four hours per week and that Mr. Tsuji noted that housekeeping benefits should be reviewed and reassessed in eight weeks, which the applicant submits did not occur and therefore HKHM is payable.

68The respondent argues that it terminated HKHM on April 14, 2022, based on the IE report of Mr. Tsuji, occupational therapist and that on August 29, 2022, housekeeping expenses were denied pending a statutory declaration and an itemized declaration. The respondent argues that itemized declaration list provided by the applicant did not contain any tasks that were recommended by a treating practitioner or assessor and that there is no evidence that the applicant completed these tasks pre-accident.

69It is important to note that HKHM services are limited to persons who have suffered from a catastrophic impairment or an individual who has purchased optional benefits. In this case the submissions do not suggest that the applicant has sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident nor was I informed if optional benefits were purchased. In the absence of either, that would enough to dismiss her HKHM claim. However, on the assumption that she had optional benefits, I find that the applicant is not entitled to $100/week for HKHM services because her declaration does not support the services performed as being reasonable and necessary.

70In his report Mr. Tsuji recommend time limited housekeeping assistance once a week for 4 hours to provide weekly cleaning for her house, allowing her to focus on improving her activity tolerance and steadily resuming her more robust pre-accident housekeeping routine and that this level of assistance should be reviewed and re-assessed in 8 weeks from the denial letter dated April 14, 2022. While I was not pointed to evidence that a re-assessment did take place, the respondent in its denial letter dated April 14, 2022, further advised that it denied HKHM services based on Dr. Naaman and Dr. Aladetoyinbo’s medical opinions that the applicant does not suffer a substantial inability to perform the housekeeping and home maintenance that she normally performed before the accident. I accept Dr. Naaman and Dr. Aladetoyinbo’s medical opinion because the contemporaneous evidence shows that the applicant had achieved maximum medical recovery from her accident-related injuries.

71In addition, the applicant’s declaration informs that the recommended HKHM services proposed by Mr. Tsuji did not occur. The declaration informs that PKJ concrete performed services such as organizing Christmas gifts, hanging Christmas lights, helping organize the house and food for Christmas, taking furniture to the barn, clean and paint the laundry room, sand and paint the garage, sand the living room ceiling and paint, paint the bedroom ceiling. The list of services performed under HKHM is further supportive that HKHM services are not reasonable and necessary.

72I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to HKHM services in the amount of $100.00 per week from April 14 and ongoing because it is not reasonable and necessary.

OCF-6 for housekeeping, mileage and prescription medication for $1,960.68

73I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $1,960.68 for housekeeping, mileage and prescription medication.

74The applicant submits she has complied with the respondent’s requests for additional information such as a Statutory Declaration along with supporting documents for incurred expenses; however, the respondent has failed to properly reply within 30 days pursuant to s.46.3 of the Schedule.

75The respondent argues its denial is based on the same reasons as its denial of HKHM as above as the OCF-6 relates to HKHM, the purchase of and installation of railings that was never recommended by a treating practitioner nor submitted by way of an OCF-18. It argues that the medications and mileage claims are for medical issues that are not accident related.

76I find the disputed expenses related to housekeeping are not payable because they were not recommended by a treatment provider and because the unpaid milage and medications correspond with non-accident-related medical treatment.

77The prescription subscriptions provided are in relation to reflux and chest pain medications, which I was not pointed to as being accident related. The outstanding mileage relates to medical and hospital visits that were not accident related and the home care and housekeeping invoice is for the same issue as above and appear to have been completed by PKJ Concrete. Contrary to the applicant’s argument that she did not receive a response from the respondent, the evidence shows that the respondent provided a detailed letter on April 29, 2022, addressing the line items and a detailed reason for its denial which I accept.

78I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant is not entitled to $1,960.68 for housekeeping, mileage and prescription medication.

Interest

79Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. As no benefits are owing, interest is not owing

ORDER

80It is ordered that:

i. The applicant is not entitled to the disputed treatment and assessment plans.

ii. The applicant is not entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $1,671.81 per month from January 31, 2024, and ongoing.

iii. The applicant is not entitled to housekeeping and home maintenance benefits in the amount of $100.00 per week from April 9, 2022, and ongoing.

iv. The applicant is not entitled to housekeeping and mileage expenses in the amount of $1,960.68 submitted on an OCF-6 dated April 8, 2022.

v. As no benefits are owing, interest is not payable.