Print

 

 Volume. 8 Issue. 10 – March 13, 2024


This week we consider the Tribunal’s reasonings with respect to the validity or lack thereof regarding denial notices relied upon by the Respondent. In addition, pain relief is the key consideration with respect to the reasonableness of three treatment plans. Of further note, the Tribunal relies extensively upon its own jurisprudence in coming to the various conclusions.



SABS Summer Session!

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2024 Summer Virtual Training session. inHEALTH continues to celebrate 25 years! Join the celebration and receive 25% off SABS Expedited until April 30, 2024!

  • SABS Expedited: June 17th – 21st, 2024

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

Course details & register here +



Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Deficient Notices Invalidate Denials – Injured in a January 2017 MVA, the Applicant Nwaogwugwu sought entitlement to two treatment plans for physiotherapy and one for an orthopaedic assessment. However Aviva, in 21-013593 v Aviva, raised a preliminary issue with respect to two of the disputed items, claiming that Nwaogwugwu is statute barred from proceeding with her claim for these benefits because she failed to file her application within the 2 year limitation period. Ultimately the Tribunal found that Nwaogwugwu was not statute barred, and was further entitled to all three of the issues in dispute.

Procedurally

With respect to the preliminary issues, the Tribunal “agreed with the applicant that the limitation periods for both treatment plans were not triggered by the respondent’s letters dated September 4, 2019 and November 1, 2019 as those letters do not constitute clear and unequivocal notices.” Nwaogwugwu relied on Nadine Robinson v. Aviva (22-006390) wherein the threshold for a valid denial was set out:

“In order for the provision under section 56 to be triggered, I must determine whether the respondent’s notice of denial was proper in accordance with the principles set out in Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 30 (“Smith”). According to Smith, the refusal to pay the benefit must contain straightforward and clear language, it must be directed towards an unsophisticated person, it must outline the dispute resolution process and the relevant time limits that govern the process, and it must provide valid or other reasons for the denial… Accordingly, Smith requires a denial notice to be as specific and accessible as possible to ensure that there is no ambiguity in what they mean when read by an unsophisticated person. This means the notice at the very least should explain what the insured person’s medical conditions are…”

Robinson further referenced the finding in Divisional Court in Hedley v. Aviva that boilerplate medical reasons for denials of treatment plans submitted under the Schedule constitute no reasons at all. Reasons must be meaningful in order to permit the insured to decide whether or not to challenge the insurer’s determination.

For the within matter, the denial notice for the $1549.68 treatment plan set out the following “medical reason”:

As per the Insurers examination report dated Aug 17, 2017 completed by Dr. Naiman it was indicated that “the claimant does not currently have an impairment as a result of the motor vehicle accident.” As no compelling evidence has been submitted to suggest further physical treatment is required, we are requesting an insurers examination.

In addition, the denial relied upon for the $2516 orthopaedic assessment “was even more minimalist and generic”, simply indicating that “The type(s) of treatment does not appear consistent with the patient’s diagnosis.” The Tribunal further reasoned that Aviva’s “boilerplate denial letters were also ambiguous with respect to the date when the two year limitation starts. Similarly, the denial letters do not comply with the requirements in Smith, as they also fail to state the reasons, medical or otherwise, for the denial. The respondent therefore failed to comply with the requirements under subsection 38(8) of the Schedule by failing to provide adequate medical reasons to deny the disputed OCF-18s. Pursuant to the analysis in Robinson, these letters do not represent valid denial notices and therefore did not trigger limitation period in section 56 of the Schedule.”



Finding that Aviva did not provide the necessary information with respect to its denials until it issued its Explanation of Benefits (‘EOB’) on December 12, 2019, the two year limitation period only began to run from this date, and therefore the Nwaogwugwu’s claims fell within the two year period. Therefore Nwaogwugwu was not barred by section 56 of the Schedule from proceeding with her claim with respect to the two treatment plans.

Substantive

The Tribunal then went on to address from a substantive perspective the two plans for physiotherapy, finding both to be reasonable and necessary. Aviva’s IE assessor, who opined that Nwaogwugwu had reached maximum medical recovery, did confirm the existence of residual symptomatology. Both of the disputed plans indicated pain relief as a goal. Nwaogwugwu relied on G.R. and Aviva (17-001146):

I must consider the necessity of the Treatment Plan’s cost by looking at all of the circumstances… The applicant knows his body, and he knows what reduces his pain. He has chosen to receive facility based physiotherapy treatment. I appreciate that the effect of physiotherapy can have diminishing returns: the applicant’s pain reduction may not be as marked as in the past. I am satisfied that pain reduction, even on a lesser scale, is a necessary goal.

With Nwaogwugwu having confirmed to the psychological IE that therapy was beneficial, and the earlier IE assessor confirming ongoing symptoms, both physio plans were reasonable and necessary in light of their objectives of pain reduction and a return to full functionality.

As for the orthopaedic assessment, Aviva’s assessor had opined that “there was no objective evidence of accident related orthopaedic, musculoskeletal or neurological impairment and that an orthopaedic assessment was therefore not reasonable and necessary.” However, as he did acknowledge ongoing pain, “I agree with the applicant that an orthopaedic assessment to determine the possible cause of this symptomology represents a valid objective.”



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

 

Archive of LAT Updates

December 18, 2024: Applicant Successful in CAT Case Where Respondent’s Expert Unavailable

CAT

December 16, 2024: Applicants Lose on Flawed Interpretation of the Schedule

MIG

December 11, 2024: Court Sends Paraplegic Matter Back to Tribunal re “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court, Reconsiderations

December 9, 2024: Pre-Existing Conditions MIG Escapes?

MIG

December 4, 2024: Court Remits $770K Award Worthy Matter Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

December 2, 2024: GP Questionnaire Does Not Trigger MIG Escape on Pre Existing

MIG

November 27, 2024: Court Remits $200K Award Worthy Matters Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

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