The claimant was involved in an accident in 2016 and found catastrophically impaired in 2020. The insurer denied entitlement to ACBs in 2016, and refused to reconsider entitlement to ACBs after the catastrophic impairment finding. The insurer argued that the claimant’s 2020 LAT application for ACBs was barred by the limitation period. Vice Chair Boyce found that Tomec v. Economical governed the result, and that the claimant was not barred from disputing entitlement to ACBs. The insurer argued that Tomec was distinguishable because in this case, the claimant had received ACBs prior to the termination in 2016. Vice Chair Boyce rejected that fact as a distinguishing factor, stating that once the claimant was found catastrophically impaired, he was entitled to advance his claim for post-104 week ACBs. The insurer could not rely upon the earlier denial to support a limitation period argument. Additionally, Vice Chair Boyce held that he would have applied section 7 of the LAT Act to extend the limitation period if Tomec had not been binding on him.