Category: Medical Benefits

Applicant v. Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company (17-000117)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical benefits. The insurer asserted the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary. Adjudicator Christopher Ferguson reviewed the medical evidence, and concluded that on a balance of probabilities the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary. Interest on all incurred amounts was also found payable.

Applicant v. ACE INA Insurance (17-001422)

The claimant sought entitlement to various medical benefits; the insurer sought repayment of IRBs due to overpayment of the weekly quantum. Adjudicator Treksler held that the claimant failed to provide evidence that the claimed physical therapy and assessments were reasonable and necessary. She ordered the claimant to repay the overpayment in IRBs, stating that the insured had complied with all of the requirements of section 52 and the claimant had not shown that any exception to repayment applied.

Applicant v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-001539)

The claimant sought entitlement to eight treatment plans for further assessments and treatment. Adjudicator Gosio rejected all of the claimed benefits, writing that the claimant had simply repeated the contents of the treatment plans as the justification as to why they were reasonable and necessary. On the other hand, the insurer had provided the opinions of four IE assessors, who each concluded that the proposed benefits were not reasonable and necessary.

N.F. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (17-000456)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical benefits. In addition to a MIG position, the insurer asserted that the claimant was barred from bringing a claim as notice to claim accident benefits was not provided within seven days (or reasonably thereafter) of the MVA, pursuant to sections 32 and 55. Adjudicator S.F. Mather reviewed the circumstances leading up to the claimant providing an application for accident benefits three months following the MVA and determined that the time it took to bring the claim was not unreasonable. Although the application was incomplete, Adjudicator Mather ruled it was reasonable to obtain the missing information on review of the overall claim. With respect to the medical benefits claimed, Adjudicator Mather ruled that the notice letters did not take a position on the MIG and did not provide medical reasons for the denial. As a result, the insurer was precluded from taking a MIG position, and therefore must pay for the treatment plans claimed. No discussion of whether the treatment was reasonable was needed, since the provisions make it clear an insurer shall pay for treatment it fails to provide notice to, until the notice is cured. Therefore the treatment plans claimed were deemed payable.

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Company (17-001922)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical benefits. The insurer asserted that the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary and that one plan was partially approved in accordance with the Professional Service Guidelines. Adjudicator Therese Reilly, on review of the evidence, found none of the claimant’s claims payable. The PSGs were accepted as the appropriate cap on services and therefore the partial approval by the insurer was correct. The remaining claims were not substantiated by the claimant and deemed not reasonable and necessary.

I.A. v. Unifund Claims Inc (17-000785)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of treatment plans. The insurer asserted a MIG position and also raised a limitation defense to one of the treatment plans. Adjudicator Billeh Hamud reviewed the denial letter of the insurer and found it to be clear and unequivocal. However, Adjudicator Hamud also noted that the claimant established a pre-existing injury that prevented recovery within the MIG; namely chronic pain from a previous MVA. Accordingly, the non-limitation barred treatment plans were found payable.

Applicant v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance (16-002278)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of treatment plans, both psychological and physical-based. The insurer asserted a MIG position. On review of the medical evidence, Adjudicator Paul Gosio determined the claimant established the injuries sustained were outside the MIG by virtue of a psychological report, which was not rebutted by the insurer. As a result, the psychological treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary, along with a chronic pain and one chiropractic plan.

Applicant v. State Farm Insurance Company (16-002858)

The claimant sought entitlement to three additional assessments related to a catastrophic impairment determination. The insurer denied them as being duplicative and unreasonable. Adjudicator Johal held that the in order to be payable, the proposed catastrophic impairment assessment had to be reasonable and necessary. Each proposed assessment was to be examined on that standard. Adjudicator Johal held that two of the proposed assessments were reasonable and necessary, but that no evidence was provided supporting the third assessment. The adjudicator also held that a maximum of $2,000 was to be paid for each proposed assessment. She denied a special award, stating that the insurer had based its denial on two paper review IEs and that it was not unreasonable for the insurer to do so.

Applicant v. The Co-operators (16-004674)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG, entitlement to various medical benefits, and entitlement to the cost of an accounting report. The insurer raised a preliminary issue regarding the claimant’s non-attendance at various insurer examinations. Adjudicator Treksler held that the claimant was suffering from chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment. However, she awarded only some of the claimed medical benefits. Four treatment plans were denied due to the claimant’s failure to attend insurer examinations, and one was denied because it was incurred before a treatment plan was submitted. The cost of the accounting report was denied because the adjudicator concluded that the claimant’s entitlement to income replacement benefits was straightforward, and an accounting report was not reasonable and necessary.

Applicant v. The Personal Insurance Company (17-002301)

The claimant sought entitlement to a chronic pain assessment. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the insurer’s denials were compliant with section 38 of the SABS, and that the claimant had not proven that the assessment was reasonable and necessary. He noted that the claimant had reported a steady improvement in symptoms, and had returned to normal activities. The assessment was not awarded.