In any event, I find Rattan v. Aviva distinguishable from this matter. In Rattan v. Aviva, there were competing medical opinions on whether certain treatment was reasonable and necessary and the adjudicator weighed the opinions with consideration as to whether 1) the treatment goals are reasonable 2) the goals are being met to a reasonable degree and 3) the overall cost of achieving these goals is reasonable taking into considering both the degree of success and the availability of other treatment. Here, no weighing of competing opinions is required because the respondent led no evidence to the contrary.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.