COVID-19 UPDATE  

Applicant fails to Provide Treatment Plans to Show Treatments are Reasonable and Necessary - AH v Belair - 16-001063 v Belair

October 25, 2017, Kitchener, Ontario

Posted by: Robert Deutschmann, Personal Injury Lawyer

AH v Belair - 16-001063 v Belair Direct Insurance Company, 2017 CanLII 56675 (ON LAT)

Date of Decision: August 8, 2017
Heard Before:  Adjudicator Lori Marzinotto

ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS: entitlement to ACBs; OCF-18s not provided to LAT; individual treatment plans not addressed; insufficient evidence to prove treatments reasonable and necessary


AH was injured in a car accident on June 19, 2014, and he applied for benefits from Belair. AH was deemed catastrophically impaired on March 16, 2015. He suffered a significant injury to his left arm and specifically his left elbow which he described as “totally smashed”. He required several surgeries. He also required bone grafts, a total elbow arthroplasty and metal plates. His left arm is now four centimetres shorter and he is unable to straighten his arm and has no elbow pronation and supination. AH is right handed. Before the accident AH was a sales supervisor in a call centre. He returned to work in August 2014.

In addition to several medical benefits and assessment costs, AH sought entitlement to ACB.  Belair partially approved several treatment plans, denied others and paid ACB in the amount of $33,034.66 from July 2014 until December 18, 2015.  AH applied to the LAT for payment of the denied and/or partially approved treatment plans and as well as additional ACB.

Issues:

  1. Is AH entitled to the following attendant care benefits:
    1. $3,000 per month from June 2014 to March 2015?
    2. $6,000 per month from March 2015 and ongoing?
  2. Is AH entitled to the following medical benefits/treatment plans:
    1. a partially approved physiotherapy treatment plan submitted February 25, 2015 in the amount of $2,450 less $1,870.47?

(iv)a partially approved physiotherapy treatment plan submitted March 27, 2015 in the amount of $4,200.00 less $2,533.76?

(v)a partially approved physiotherapy treatment plan submitted June 23, 2015 in the amount of $4,200.00 less $2,165.95?

(vi)a partially approved physiotherapy treatment plan submitted June 23 in the amount of $4,200.00 less $2,165.94?

3. Is AH entitled to the following medical benefits/cost of Examinations:

  1. an occupational therapy assessment outlined in a treatment plan submitted January 25, 2015 in the amount of $2,200.00?
  2. an impairment assessment outlined in a treatment plan submitted November 04, 2015 in the amount of$1,988.64?
  3. a physiatry assessment outlined in a treatment plan submitted December 04, 2015 in the amount of $2,000.00?
  4. an assessment outlined in a partially approved treatment plan submitted October 30, 2014 in the amount $2,203.72 less $1,703.72?
  5. the cost of a functional abilities evaluation outlined in a treatment plan submitted September 23, 2014 in the amount of$1,345.95?
  6. an attendant care assessment outlined in a treatment plan submitted June 12, 2015 in the amount of $902.23?
  7. an attendant care assessment outlined in a partially approved treatment plan submitted March 07, 2016 in the amount of $1,538.75 less $1,496.75?

4. Is AH entitled to interest on any overdue payments?

RESULT:

AH is not entitled to the following:

  1. additional ACB from June 2014 – March 2015.
  2. additional ACB from March 2015 to January 31, 2016.
  3. payment of the balance of treatment plans listed as issues #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 19.
  4. payment of the treatment plans listed as issues #7, 9, 14, 15 and 18.
  5. payment of the treatment plan listed as issue #10.
  6. the treatment plan listed as issue #13 is not properly before the Tribunal.
  7. the treatment plan listed as issue #17 has been paid and therefore not an issue in dispute.

The Adjudicator reviewed the request for medical benefits and found that there was a general insufficiency of evidence that did not allow her to find for AH.  In order for treatment plans to be payable by the insurer, they must be reasonable and necessary according to section 18 of the Schedule.  AH did not individually address each treatment plan in dispute in the written submissions. AH submitted that based on medical evidence and several recommendations from medical practitioners in medical reports, that the recommended treatments in the Treatment and Assessment Plans (“OCF-18s”) are necessary.  The LAT had not been provided with any of the OCF-18s that are in dispute, and therefore the Adjudicator was unable to evaluate the recommended treatment with any treatment plans in order to assess whether they are reasonable and necessary and decline to order that they be paid.

Posted under Accident Benefit News, Attendant Care Benefits, Automobile Accident Benefits, Car Accidents, Catastrophic Injury, Fractures, LAT Case, LAT Decisions, Personal Injury, Physical Therapy

View All Posts

About Deutschmann Law

Deutschmann Law serves South-Western Ontario with offices in Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Woodstock, Brantford, Stratford and Ayr. The law practice of Robert Deutschmann focuses almost exclusively in personal injury and disability insurance matters. For more information, please visit www.deutschmannlaw.com or call us toll-free at 1-866-414-4878.

It is important that you review your accident benefit file with one of our experienced personal injury / car accident lawyers to ensure that you obtain access to all your benefits which include, but are limited to, things like physiotherapy, income replacement benefits, vocational retraining and home modifications.

Practice Areas

  1. Car accidents
  2. Motorcycle accidents
  3. Automobile accident benefits
  4. Catastrophic injury
  5. Brain or Head injury
  6. Paraplegia and Quadriplegia
  7. Spinal cord injury
  8. Drunk driving accidents
  9. Concussion syndrome
  10. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  11. Business Interruption Insurance
  12. Birth Trauma Injury
  1. Wrongful death
  2. Bicycle accidents
  3. Disability insurance claims
  4. Slip and fall injury
  5. Fractures or broken bone injury
  6. Pedestrian accidents
  7. Chronic pain
  8. Truck accidents
  9. Amputation and disfigurement
  10. Fibromyalgia
  11. Nursing Home Fatality Claims

Personal Injury Blog

Jul 02, 2020
Have you been hurt in a cycling accident? Did a car hit you or cause you to fall? You may be eligible for compensation.
Jun 30, 2020
81% of COVID-19 deaths in Canada were in long-term care – nearly double OECD average
Jun 25, 2020
Concepts of Legal Liability and Responsibility Have Not Adequately Kept Pace With Technological Advances
Jun 23, 2020
Ontario Government Agrees Drivers Should Get Auto Insurance Rebates According to Internal Memo
Jun 18, 2020
It’s no cup of tea – but spilling hot tea in the car is not considered a car accident in this case - M.P. v Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2020 CanLII 30398 (ON LAT)
Jun 18, 2020
Two recent child drownings highlight importance of water safety

More Personal Injury Articles » 
Review our services

Connect with us

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Youtube Google