The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy services. The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant’s reply. The applicant filed a response to the motion to strike a day after the deadline. Adjudicator Goela held that despite being late, she would consider the applicant’s response as it did not prejudice the respondent. Adjudicator Goela further held that the applicant’s reply was struck because the applicant used the reply to introduce new information and arguments that should have been addressed in her initial submissions. The adjudicator also held that the applicant was also not entitled to the medical benefits sought as the treatment plans were related to injuries from a previous accident.
