The claimant disputed her entitlement to a treatment plan for chiropractic services. Vice-Chair Farlam concluded that the disputed treatment plan was not necessary. Although the claimant consistently complained of back pain from 2015 to 2019, a review of the medical evidence did not show a direct relation to proposed treatments and subject accident as the claimant had pre-existing back pain, had been involved in two prior accidents, and the subject accident was only directly mentioned a few times; and at one point, was not mentioned for a period of two years.
