Decision #02/02 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
A non-oral file review was held on November 30, 2001, at the request of a union representative, acting on behalf of the claimant.
Issue
Whether or not the worker is entitled to travel expenses to attend her chiropractor.
Decision
That the worker is not entitled to travel expenses to attend her chiropractor.
Background
While employed as a personal care attendant on June 18, 2001, the claimant developed lower back and right leg pain when the following event took place:
"I was walking a resident down the hallway when she began to sit down, I came up behind her to assist her to stand, and we both ended up on the floor. The resident ended up on top of me."
On the same day of accident, the claimant attended a chiropractor for treatment. The diagnosis rendered was a disc herniation. The claim was accepted by the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) and wage loss benefits commenced.
In a letter dated July 11, 2000, Rehabilitation & Compensation Services noted that the claimant had requested traveling expenses to attend her chiropractor in Birds Hill. It was noted that the claimant's residence was in Selkirk and that her mileage to the workplace was 2.5 kilometres return and that the mileage to attend the Birds Hill chiropractor was 52 kilometres return per trip. The claimant was informed of the WCB's travel policy and was advised that she could see any chiropractor of her choice but that the WCB did not pay for travel expenses when there was an equivalent facility closer to her place of residence.
The claimant wrote an appeal to Review Office dated July 18, 2001 and stated the following:
- there was no "equivalent facility" near her place of residence as the chiropractor in Birds Hill used a superior and advanced method of treatment called Activator Method. The Activator Method was not available closer to her residence.
- the travel expenses submitted were not "excessive" as Birds Hill was the closest facility in her residence.
On August 3, 2001 Review Office determined that there was no entitlement to payment of travel expenses to attend a chiropractor in Birds Hill. Review Office was of the opinion that the claimant did have the right to choose a practitioner. However, the WCB was not bound to pay travel expenses which were deemed to be excessive from those that would have been incurred had the worker assumed treatment with a chiropractor in her immediate area. There was no evidence to support that the treatment provided by a chiropractor in her home location would not be as effective for the worker's injury. On September 21, 2001, a union representative appealed Review Office's decision on the claimant's behalf and a non-oral file review was arranged.
Reasons
This case involves a worker who incurred an injury in the workplace, which was accepted as compensable and for which she received benefits.
The claimant chose to attend a chiropractor in a community at some distance from her home. She did so because this chiropractor used a particular method of treatment.
She sought to have the board pay her travel expenses between her home and the office of this practitioner. The board refused to do so as there are fully qualified and licensed chiropractors in her home community. Review Office, after reconsidering her file, upheld this decision. She appealed the Review Office decision to this commission.
For her appeal to be successful, the Panel would have to determine that the claimant was compelled to travel as equivalent treatment was not available in her home community. We were not able to make that determination.
Under Board Policy No. 44.120.10, the board will pay reasonable expenses for travel to medical treatment, which are in excess of costs normally incurred by the worker travelling to and from work. Board practice is that, where treatment is available in a worker's home community, no expenses will be paid, should the worker choose to seek alternate treatment.
She chose to attend a chiropractor who uses the "activator method" of treatment. It is her belief that this is an advanced and superior method of chiropractic treatment. This may be, although it is open to debate among chiropractors. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the chiropractic treatment available in her hometown would not have been as effective.
We have concluded that it was her choice to travel to another community for treatment, and that it was not medically necessary to do so, as equivalent treatment is available in her hometown. Thus, we don't find this to be a "reasonable" expense as set out in policy.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Panel Members
T. Sargeant, Presiding Officer
B. Popowich, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, B. Miller
T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 8th day of January, 2002