The claimant applied to the LAT for NEBs, ACBs, and various medical benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant failed to attend IEs and was not permitted to proceed with the LAT dispute until attending. Adjudicator Hines held that the claimant could not proceed with her claims for ACBs, an in home-assessment, or on treatment plan for chiropractic services. The IE notices for those benefits contained all information required by section 44. The medical reasons indicated that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG (among other things). The claimant was permitted to proceed with the other aspects of her claim as the IE notices did not set out sufficient medical reasons. In particular, the insurer wrote in the deficient IE requests “the disability period appears to be inconsistent with the diagnosis or mechanism of the injury.” This wording was found to be insufficient as it was not specific to the claim’s injuries and would not be understood by a lay person.
