The claimant sought entitlement to a treatment plan for dietician services, a treatment plan for physiotherapy, a rehabilitation benefit for rehabilitation support worker services, and interest. The claimant submitted that he gained weight after the accident which has been a barrier to his recovery. The parties disagreed as to the amount of weight the claimant gained after the accident, but it was sufficient to note that the claimant experienced additional weight gain because of accident-related inactivity and stress. Vice-Chair McGee rejected one of the IE assessors’ opinion on the basis that the report raised doubt as to the thoroughness of the assessment and found that the claimant had discharged his onus of establishing that dietician services were reasonable and necessary. The claimant further submitted that the treatment plan for rehabilitation support worker services was reasonable and necessary based on the opinion of one of the expert witnesses. However, Vice-Chair McGee determined that the claimant failed to establish how the services described in the plan aligned with the expert’s recommendations and how interpersonal relationship facilitation was linked to the exercise follow-through and help with home projects that were the proposed focus of rehabilitation support in the treatment plan. For these reasons, the proposed rehabilitation support services was deemed not reasonable or necessary. Lastly, the treatment plan for physiotherapy services was found to be reasonable and necessary as the insurer had not presented reliable evidence that the claimant’s condition would not be changed by ongoing physiotherapy treatment meanwhile the claimant presented evidence that he had experienced symptomatic relief from physiotherapy. The claimant also sought the exclusion of two of the Insurer’s Examination (IE) reports because the authors failed to complete and sign an Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty form as required under Rule 10.2(b) of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. The insurer submitted that the claimant was non-complaint with Rule 10.2, specifically sub-rule 10.2(a), which required a party to provide the name and contact information of an expert witness, and sub-rule 10.2(e), which required a party to provide a summary of the expert witness’s findings and conclusions. Vice-Chair McGee concluded that the reports of the expert witnesses complied with the requirements of Rule 10.2(a) and (e) and were admissible. On the other hand, the insurer failed to comply with Rule 10.2(b) in respect of the IE reports. However, Vice-Chair McGee was prepared to admit the reports despite the insurer’s non-compliance with the rule. Vice-Chair McGee found that the prejudice to the insurer that the exclusion of its expert evidence would cause exceeds the concern for technical compliance with the Rules. The Rules are to be liberally interpreted and applied and may be varied to facilitate a fair process.
Menu