Print

 

 Volume. 8 Issue. 35 – October 2, 2024


This week we review a case wherein the Applicant had not been removed from the MIG until 4.5 years post accident following which they submitted 3 new treatment plans which were denied due to a “gap” in submissions and that they were outside of the five year window for benefits. Ultimately, the positioning of the Respondent was found sufficiently stubborn and inflexible so as to justify an Award, as well as a finding that the three items in dispute were deemed incurred.



Virtual Training – Fall Sessions!

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2024 Fall Virtual Training sessions!

  • BI Fundamentals: November 4th – 8th, 2024

*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion

Course details & register here +



All Items in Dispute Deemed Incurred

Deemed Incurred + Award – Injured in a June 2017 MVA, the Applicant Siddiqui sought entitlement to three treatment plans, two dated June 3, 2022 for physiotherapy and psychological therapy and a 3rd dated May 10, 2022 for a chronic pain assessment. Siddiqui also sought an award based upon having experienced a significant delay in approval and payment of treatment essential for medical recovery and abstained from receiving necessary treatment for an extended period due to the recurring issues of non-approval and non-payment of incurred expenses.

Of particular note, Siddiqui, in 22-006538 v Aviva, was only removed from the MIG by Aviva September 17, 2021 (4.5 years after the accident) when a prior application under file no. 20-009861/AABS was settled on the basis that the applicant was removed from the MIG and incurred treatment plans were paid.

Aviva took the position that “all three plans at issue are not reasonable and necessary on the basis that there are insufficient clinical notes and records to support the approval of the plan and the plan was submitted between May 10, 2022 to June 3, 2022, nearly 5 years post-accident, and therefore the plan cannot be accepted at face value without additional supporting medical evidence. With respect to the chiropractic services plan, the respondent submits that there is no evidence that the plan is reasonable and necessary and notes that the applicant did not receive any physiotherapy in the 4.5 years prior to submission of the plan.”

The Tribunal however noted that “In light of the applicant only being removed from the MIG on September 17, 2021 as a result of the settlement of the applicant’s prior appeal to the Tribunal and having significant amounts owing under the treatment plans until the settlement of the prior application, I am not prepared to make the adverse inference suggested by the respondent that the applicant not seeking physiotherapy treatment in the 4.5 years means that the plan is not reasonable and necessary.” It was further noted that Siddiqui had “submitted CNRs of (his) doctor in addition to the plans at issue to support the claim for accident benefits. I find that the applicant is suffering from ongoing back and joint pain as a result of the accident. I note that there are CNRs which provide evidence in respect of ongoing knee and back pain complaints and a desire to obtain medical rehabilitation in respect of this pain.” Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the OCF18 for chiropractic services proposed in the plan was reasonable and necessary.

Turning next to the plan for psychological services, it was the position of Aviva that neither the 2017 report relied upon nor the more recent one from 2021 can be considered contemporaneous medical evidence in support of the June 2022 plan. Aviva further submitted that the two referenced reports “represent the entirety of the applicant’s psychological complaints post-2017.” Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the evidence proffered by Siddiqui and found this plan also to be reasonable and necessary.



Finally, with respect to the OCF18 for a chronic pain assessment Aviva submitted that “there is no evidence that the applicant’s medical condition or behaviour meets any of the criteria in the six criteria set out by the by the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th edition (“the AMA Guides”) on which the Tribunal has relied in evaluating chronic pain.” The Tribunal however countered that “To be entitled to a claim for a chronic pain assessment, the applicant need not establish that he meets the criteria for a chronic pain syndrome diagnosis. The purpose of a chronic pain assessment is to assess whether the applicant suffers from chronic pain and/or chronic pain syndrome and to formulate recommendations to assist in alleviation of symptoms and return to normal activities of daily living.”

Aviva relied upon a June 13, 2022 denial, that included the following “We also note the last treatment provided and incurred with regard to the accident was on December 6, 2017. We are uncertain as to why there has been such a gap in requesting treatment and why these plans were submitted the end of your 5-year limit… As your injuries are not deemed to be catastrophic, the 5-year period for you to claim medical and rehabilitation benefits expires on June 13, 2022; therefore, we cannot consider any further medical, rehabilitation benefits after this date. We may consider payment of costs associated with the treatment and assessment plans listed above incurred from May 10, 2022 to June 13, 2022.”

Siddiqui submitted that it “would have been apparent to the respondent that the applicant had been confined to the MIG for approximately 4.5 years and had abstained from receiving further necessary treatment for an extended period due to the recurring issues of non-approval and non-payment of incurred expenses. After the applicant was removed from the MIG, the applicant again sought reasonable and necessary treatment, and the respondent failed to adjust his claim in good faith.” Aviva’s denial rationale simply indicated that “the clinical notes and records … do not support ongoing treatment from [the applicant’s] accident-related injuries.” They submitted that “on a holistic review of the applicant’s medical file, it is reasonable to conclude that any accident-related impairments had fully resolved by May 2022.”

The Tribunal found that Aviva ‘behaved in a manner that was stubborn and inflexible in failing to adjust the claims in good faith after the applicant was removed from the MIG, and delaying and then ultimately not proceeding to conduct an IE in respect of its MIG position in 2017 and 2018.” Aviva “failed to consider the commonsense reason that the applicant did not seek treatment while his claim was subject to the MIG limits and while he had outstanding incurred treatment amounts owing from his 2017 denied treatment plans. Further given that the prior LAT application also addressed the significant outstanding balance for treatment that the applicant was facing, it is disingenuous for the respondent to set up the applicant not seeking further treatment as a reason for any further treatment being denied. The redacted adjuster log notes provide no notes with respect to any consideration that the applicant was removed from the MIG in October 2021 and of the plans at issue, and there are no notes of the reason for the applicant being removed from the MIG.”

Concluding, “I find that it appropriate that the respondent pay an award of the lump sum of $2,500 plus interest, which amounts to approximately 25% of the amount of the benefits to which an insured person is entitled.” Siddiqui contended as well that it would be “against the consumer protection nature of the Schedule to require accident victims to incur treatment and/or assessment expenses before a decision of the Tribunal in cases where the respondent has unreasonably denied treatment plans for such a long period as to force the applicant up against the 5-year time limit for accident benefit claims.” The Tribunal opted to resolve this potential dilemma by confirming that the expenses were not incurred because the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of the plans at issue. As a result, pursuant to s. 3(8) of the Schedule, I deem the expenses with respect to the plans at issue to have been incurred.”



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

 

Archive of LAT Updates

November 25, 2024: Pre-Screen Not Psychological Diagnosis

MIG

November 20, 2024: IE Not Reasonable or Necessary – No to CAT & IRB

CAT, IRB, Procedure

November 18, 2024: No Evidence Pre-Existing Conditions Prevent MMR

MIG

November 13, 2024: Applicant’s Explanation for Delayed Application Found Reasonable

Procedure

November 11, 2024: GP Concussion Diagnosis Accepted as Legitimate

MIG

November 6, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT

November 4, 2024: Submissions Do Not = Evidence

MIG

October 30, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT, Divisional Court

October 28, 2024: IE Fails to Explain Lack of Diagnosis

MIG

October 23, 2024: Loose Lid Unexpected "Accident"

Definition Accident

October 21, 2024: Dental Work Required Not Caused by MVA

MIG

October 7, 2024: Continuity of Complaints Confirm Chronic Pain

MIG

October 2, 2024: All Items in Dispute Deemed Incurred

Treatment Plans

September 30, 2024: Ignoring Medical Evidence Proves Award Worthy

MIG

September 25, 2024: Credibility Issues Abound with IE Assessor

IE

September 23, 2024: Reliance on Symptom Magnification Test Proves Fatal

MIG

September 16, 2024: Self Reporting Accepted for Psych MIG Escape

MIG

September 9, 2024: Diagnosis Alone Falls Short in Chronic Pain Case

MIG

September 4, 2024: CAT Finding Upheld on Reconsideration

CAT, Reconsiderations

August 28, 2024: Staged MVA Results in $93K Repayment Order

Definition Accident, Evidence

August 26, 2024: What Exactly Constitutes “Compelling” Evidence?

MIG

August 21, 2024: Extreme Impairment Confirmed in CAT Decision

CAT

August 19, 2024: Post Concussive Syndrome Diagnosed in Telephone Interview

MIG

August 14, 2024: Reconsideration Varies Decision Regarding “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

August 12, 2024: Adverse Inference Considered in MIG Determination

MIG

August 7, 2024: Re-Training Not A Viable Option - Post 104 IRB Confirmed

IRB

July 31, 2024: Applicants Allowed to Proceed to Hearing Despite Alleged Non – Compliance

Insurer’s Examinations, Procedure

July 29, 2024: No Specific Reference to Evidence Precludes MIG Escape

MIG

July 24, 2024: When is a Spouse Not a “Spouse”?

Death Benefit

July 22, 2024: No Evidence Tendered to Rebut Concussion Diagnosis

MIG

July 17, 2024: 196K Grievance Award Factored into IRB Calculation

IRB

July 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Does Not Warrant MIG Escape

MIG

July 10, 2024: Court Allows Applicant to Submit Judicial Review After the Fact

Divisional Court

July 8, 2024: MIG Escape Despite Unrelated Psych Issues

MIG

July 3, 2024:Application Premature On Benefits Claimed in Excess of Limits

Award, CAT, Jurisdiction

June 26, 2024: Multiple Wilful Misrepresentations Claimed but Only One Established

IRB

June 24, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis 4 Years Later Uncontroverted

MIG

June 19, 2024: Court Sets Aside Tribunal Decision and Makes Decision that Ought to Have Been Made

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

June 17, 2024: Cause of ‘Remote’ Finger Fracture Questioned

MIG

June 10, 2024: Reliability on IE Opinions Challenged

MIG

June 5, 2024: IE 'Highly Intrusive' - Not Acceptable Reason For Failure To Attend

Insurer's Examinations

June 3, 2024: MVA Necessary Cause of Subluxation of Shoulder Joint

MIG

May 29, 2024: Practicing Lawyer Seeks CAT Determination

CAT

May 27, 2024: Differing Opinions on Right Knee Injury Causation

MIG

May 22, 2024: Four Marked Impairments CAT and Post 104 IRB Confirmed

CAT, IRB

May 15, 2024: Court Confirms Three Breaches of Procedural Fairness by Tribunal

Div Court

May 13, 2024: Little Weight Given to Illegible Doctor's Notes

MIG

May 8, 2024: Reasonable Perception of Bias Involving Former Adjudicator Requires Rehearing

Reconsideration

May 6, 2024: Potential Causation Does Not Support MIG Escape

MIG

May 1, 2024: Tribunal Varies Three Decisions on Reconsideration

Reconsideration, Treatment Plans

April 29, 2024: Credibility of Assessment Favored Over Psych Validity Testing

MIG

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