The claimant sought entitlement to one treatment plan for chiropractic services. Adjudicator Grant found that the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary. He noted that a treating physician’s mention of a chronic pain condition, be it ‘syndrome’ or specific use of the term ‘chronic pain,’ is not enough to establish the necessity of a treatment plan. Adjudicator Grant found that references to chronic pain in the medical records appeared to be in reference to a non-accident-related condition, and the claimant failed to establish that due to ‘chronic pain’, the treatment was reasonable and necessary.
