The claimant sought entitlement to an OCF-18 in the amount of $26,919.25 for 12 CAT assessments. Vice Chair Boyce dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant had not demonstrated that the OCF-18 was necessary for the purpose of her CAT application or that the proposed amount of $26,919.25 was a reasonable fee. He noted that it was unclear from the claimant’s submissions what accident-related impairments she believed would result in a CAT designation in order to justify the proposed assessments, and did not provide specific submissions as to why each of the proposed assessments was reasonable and necessary. Vice Chair Boyce emphasized that funding for CAT assessments was not automatic under the SABS and rejected the argument that CAT assessments must be approved as a matter of procedural fairness when insurers conducted CAT assessment. Rather, it remained the claimant’s burden to prove that the OCF-18 for CAT assessments is reasonable and necessary.