The claimant sought entitlement to one treatment plan for rehabilitation therapy. The claimant argued that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, and that as the respondent had failed to respond to the treatment plan within the required ten days under the SABS, it should be deemed paid under section 38(11) of the SABS. The respondent argued that the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, and that as the expense sought under the treatment plan was not incurred, it was not payable. Adjudicator Watt agreed with the insurer, and concluded that the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary as the claimant was not suffering from any accident related impairments. The adjudicator also noted that given the lack of evidence to show that the claimant actually incurred the expenses relating to the proposed treatment plan, he had no entitlement to that amount from the respondent.
