The claimant applied to the LAT disputing entitlement to a treatment and assessment plan for chiropractic treatment. The insurer denied the plan and requested the claimant attend an IE, noting the plan had been submitted four years post-accident and no additional medical documentation had been provided. The claimant attended the IE, but refused to sign the consent form provided to her by the facility without first having her counsel read the document. The IE was cancelled and correspondence between the parties was exchanged over several months regarding the consent form. The insurer agreed to provide a copy of the form to the claimant and her counsel, and requested five dates which would be convenient to reschedule the IE. The claimant eventually returned the form with a significant portion of it crossed off. She also refused to produce photo ID for the purpose of the assessment. The insurer agreed to the changes to the consent, with the exception of photo ID, noting the importance of the same as otherwise there was no way to verify her identity. The insurer then rescheduled the IE to one of the agreeable dates. The claimant refused to attend and her benefits were suspended. The insurer rescheduled the IE again, and once again the claimant did not attend, nor did she respond to the insurer’s letters. The claimant then applied to the LAT. Vice-Chair Boyce ruled that the claimant was barred from litigating the disputed treatment plan. He noted that the requirement of the insurer to require that the claimant checks the box indicating photo ID was provided, and to provide the same to confirm her identify was entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the insurer not only showed willingness to accept the modified form with numerous changes by the claimant, but attempted to reschedule the assessment as well. Lastly, he noted that while a claimant has the right to dispute the insurer’s request for a signed consent form, the claimant was not exempt from their obligations under section 44 of the SABS.
Menu