The claimant sought entitlement to psychological treatment, a chronic pain program, and interest on the payment of overdue benefits. Adjudicator Boyce found that the claimant was entitled to the portion of the disputed psychological treatment plan for psychological sessions; however, with respect to the remaining elements of the disputed treatment plan, he agreed with the insurer’s position that there were other methods of determining the effectiveness of treatment aside from a progress report, and transportation was not required since the clinic was close to the claimant’s home. With respect to the disputed chronic pain program, Adjudicator Boyce found that the claimant’s complaints of pain to her family physician and treating practitioners were “consistent, continuous and voluminous.” As such, Adjudicator Boyce found on the evidence that the chronic pain program was partially reasonable and necessary: the rehabilitative components were well-supported by the documentation and he agreed that one progress report would be beneficial, but he did not find that a second progress report or the social work and education elements of the plan were reasonable and necessary.
Menu