Print

 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 35 – September 7, 2022



This week the Tribunal considers two distinct instances wherein the Respondent, despite a clear breach of s.38(8) notice requirements, is not required to pay any of the associated treatment in accordance with s.38(11) of the Schedule. In ‘Timing is Everything’ the Tribunal confirms there need be a “temporal component” involved, although there seems no need for treatment to have been incurred, however this is somewhat unclear.

In ‘Applicant’s Non Compliance Trumps That of Respondent’ a case that involves three instances in which the Respondent failed to provide sufficient notice in accordance with the Schedule. However, this is “trumped” by the Applicant having failed to comply with s.38(3) of the Schedule in each instance.


Need help finding cases? Reach out to our Live Chat Experts for guided searches!



Payment Under s.38(11) Requires “Temporal Component” But Does Not Require Incurring Treatment

Timing is Everything – In 20-009520 v Aviva, the Applicant Nadarajah sought payment for a treatment plan in accordance with s.38(11) of the Schedule, as Aviva failed to comply with s.38(8) of the Schedule. Specifically, Aviva had not provided the requisite response to the treatment plan until 20 days post submission of same.

The Tribunal confirmed that s.38(11) “mandates insurers to pay for treatment plans that “relate” to a specific period of time, namely, from the 11th business day after the application is received until the date the insurer gives notice.” Further, “the term “relate” establishes a temporal component between the 11th business day after the treatment plan is received and the date the insurer gives notice. This temporal component must be considered when applying paragraph 38(11)(2).”

It was noted that Nadarajah “seems to be saying that treatment plans must be paid in their entirety once paragraph 38(11)(2) is engaged. I disagree. As noted above, the temporal component must be considered. In particular, how the period of time between the 11th and 20th business day, when the Respondent finally gave notice, relates to the treatment plan.” The Tribunal found “too restrictive” Aviva’s suggestion that Nadarajah “had to incur the chiropractic treatment during the period of non-compliance. If it was not incurred, then this treatment is not payable.” This is to be understood in context of the Tribunal having found that there had been no information provided “to confirm that the Applicant received treatment during this time. Under these circumstances, the tribunal cannot quantify what, if any, payment should be ordered.”

The Tribunal confirmed that Nadarajah had correctly identified a period of non-compliance, “but does not state how the chiropractic treatment relates to the temporal component of paragraph 38(11)(2). He merely states that he is entitled to the full treatment plan because the insurer gave late notice. Consequently, the temporal element of paragraph 38(11)(2) has not been established”

Accordingly, one is left to ponder as to the nature of a “temporal element” that needs to be provided, as it appears this may not be satisfied by confirming treatment being rendered/incurred during the applicable period?



Applicant’s Non Compliance Obviates Requirement for s.38(11) Payment

Applicant’s Non Compliance Trumps That of Respondent – In 20-010582 v Jevco, the Tribunal again considers the implications of the Respondent having breached the Notice requirements as per s.38(8) of the Schedule. However, in yet another “twist”, once again the Respondent was found not obliged to pay the Applicant during the breach period.

In this matter, Jevco was found to have failed in three separate instances to have complied with s.38(8) of the Schedule, with the Applicant Wang contending he was entitled to payment of the psychological therapy rendered as a result. The treatment plans were completed by a psychologist, Cook, who allegedly supervised the therapy of a Christine Huang, who at the time was not a registered psychotherapist. However, this arrangement was not listed on any of the associated invoices or treatment plans.

The Tribunal noted that as per the Schedule, “under s.38(3), for a treatment plan to be complete, a regulated health professional must complete and sign it, stating that the proposed services are reasonable and necessary for the insured person’s treatment and assessment.” As a result, “I find that s.38(3) implies that the treatment plan must list who the service provider is or, at a minimum, what the provider’s qualifications are and the hourly fee they are charging. Otherwise, I do not see how the regulated health professional can sign off on the reasonableness of the proposed service. For these reasons, I do not find that any of the disputed treatment plans for psychological treatment comply with s.38(3) of the Schedule.”

In the alternative, the Tribunal found that “If I am incorrect and a treatment plan is not required to list the name, qualifications and hourly rate of the treatment provider to be complete, I fail to see how any treatment provided by a different, less qualified treatment provider than what is described in the treatment plan can be said to qualify as the goods or services “described” in s.38(11) of the Schedule.” The treatment plans did not comply with s.38(3) of the Schedule, as the provider Huang was nowhere listed. As a result, “s.38(11) does not apply. However, if it did, the applicant would not be entitled to the psychological treatment described in the treatment plan from April 25, 2019, less amounts already paid until a requisite denial was made because he did not receive any of the psychological treatment described in the plan.”

Further, “if I am wrong in finding that s.38(11) does not apply because a completed treatment plan in accordance with s.38(3) of the Schedule was not submitted, the respondent is not required by s.38(11) to pay anything further under the treatment plan until the applicant is able to prove that he received any treatment from Mr. Cook pending the requisite notice of denial”.



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

April 24, 2024: Wilful Misrepresentation Abounds on IRB Repayments

IRB

April 22, 2024: Records Alone Do Not Warrant MIG Removal on Pre-Existing

MIG

April 15, 2024: Demands of Child-birth Pre-Existing Condition?

MIG

April 10, 2024: Court Upholds Tribunal Decision That a MIG Removal is a Complete MIG Removal

Divisional Court, MIG

April 8, 2024: Psychiatric Diagnosis Prevails over Psychological Opinion

MIG

April 3, 2024: Court Sends Matter Back to Tribunal Concerning “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

April 1, 2024: Ortho Opinion Prevails on Origins of a Fracture

MIG

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On