The claimant disputed his entitled to a treatment plan for physiotherapy services. Adjudicator Leslie found that the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, emphasizing the claimant’s significant pre-accident history of back pain (for which he was receiving regular physiotherapy treatment prior to the accident) and the fact that the insurer had approved ongoing physiotherapy services for 3.5 years post-accident. While Adjudicator Leslie accepted that the claimant may still have some pain, she was unable to determine whether 3.5 years of treatment had resolved the pain conditions caused by the accident and questioned whether the prolonged treatment reflected a sign of reasonableness/necessity for continued similar treatment, or whether it reflected a sign of dependence. She ultimately chose to prefer the evidence of the IE assessor who recommended that the claimant pursue self-directed activities rather than further facility based treatment.
