The claimant sought medical benefits for assistive devices, chiropractic treatment, and a functionality assessment, as well as a special award. Adjudicator Boyce held that the claimant was entitled to the medical benefits sought, but not a special award. The adjudicator held that the assistive devices sought were reasonable and necessary as Aviva removed the claimant from the MIG and took the position that she could manage her pain with a home-based exercise plan. The adjudicator also held that chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary as the claimant plateaued with physiotherapy and was recommended to explore alternative methods of rehabilitation. The adjudicator further held that the incurred functional abilities evaluation was reasonable and necessary, as it was reasonable to determine how the claimant’s injuries impaired her work and home life to escape the MIG, it was necessary to ensure she did not re-injure herself at work, and it was necessary to educate the claimant on her limitations and prevention of pain. The adjudicator held that Aviva’s minor delay in producing the AB file did not necessitate a special award, as it did not prejudice the claimant or prevent her from receiving benefits.
