The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to various benefits, including payment for catastrophic assessments. The claimant submitted that the proposed CAT assessments met both the reasonableness and guideline requirements for entitlement to funding. Adjudicator Kaur disagreed with the claimant’s position, noting that she had failed to submit appropriate evidence before the Tribunal in support of the disputed treatment plans. The claimant relied heavily on a neuropsychological report which Adjudicator Kaur found to be fraught with inconsistencies. The onus is on a claimant to prove that the treatment plans are reasonable and necessary and the claimant failed to do so in this case. She did not submit any clinical record from her family physician or other treating professions nor she did she submit any cogent evidence to refute the insurers denial.
