S.A. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (19-000995)

The claimant disputed entitlement to two treatment plans for treatments focused on neurological and concussive injuries. Adjudicator Norris noted that the claimant appeared to have predominantly psychological injuries as a result of the accident. He cited the insurer examination reports of Dr. Smyth (neurologist) and Dr. Belfon (physician) as holding greater weight than the claimant’s evidence. Adjudicator Norris also noted that primary reason for the claimant’s visits to her family doctor was in fact to report psychological symptoms, and not symptoms related to neurological or concussive symptoms. He also gave little weight to the section 25 report of Dr. Horseman (chiropractor) as it was not accompanied by any records or test results to substantiate Dr. Horseman’s conclusions. Adjudicator Norris found the treatment plans not reasonable and necessary and denied any interest.