The claimant filed a LAT Application disputing several OCF-18s with interest. A special award was also claimed. The claimant argued that her worsening pre-accident fibromyalgia had resulted in numerous falls prior to the accident which required physical treatment. The main issue was payment of an OCF-18 for an attendant care assessment. The assessment had been incurred and a Form 1 recommending $1,231.30 in attendant care had been submitted. The Co-operators denied the OCF-18. The Co-operators argument involved s. 25 and s. 14. They argued that the claimant’s issues and injuries were not as a result of the accident, and while she had in fact been removed from the MIG due to her pre-exisiting conditions, the attendant care assessment would not be payable as any injury was pre-existing and not “as a result of the accident”, which would not allow access to attendant care. Furthermore, they argued that under s. 18(2), the claimant would only be removed from the cap on MR funding, and that under s. 25(2) or s. 14, this would not establish entitlement to an attendant care assessment solely based on a pre-existing condition. Adjudicator Grant disagreed, noting that the Co-operators appeared to be conflating the intentions of s. 25 and s. 14 in order to split impairments from access to funding. He further noted that a plain reading of s. 14(2) showed that once the insured had received notice of removal from the MIG, it was final and complete — there was no “partial removal”. Adjudicator Grant found the occupational therapy report submitted by the claimant to be persuasive compared to her medicals, and ruled that the OCF-18 and resulting report were reasonable and necessary in order to establish her post-accident level of functioning.
