Massage Therapy is a Mandatory ICBC No-Fault Benefit
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal confirming that ICBC’s No-Fault Benefits Scheme (aka Part 7 Benefits) requires mandatory coverage of massage therapy benefits. Â These reasons are useful as they contradict ICBC’s internal policy limiting the availability of coverage for massage therapy.
In today’s case (Raguin v. ICBC) the infant plaintiff incurred several hundred dollars of massage therapy expenses following collision related injuries. Â ICBC refused to reimburse these arguing massage therapy is a “permissive benefit” and these expenses need not be covered. Â The Plaintiff sued and at trial ICBC was ordered to pay. Â ICBC appealed but the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the matter and upheld the trial judgement.
In finding that massage therapy is included as a mandatory part 7 benefit the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:
[31] The following observations about ss. 88(1) and (2) are uncontentious. The imperative word “shall” is used in relation to ICBC’s obligation to pay for the benefits described in s. 88(1), making such payments mandatory.  Under s. 88(2), ICBC is given discretion, as indicated by the permissive word “may”, to pay for additional benefits that are “likely to promote the rehabilitation of an insured who is injured in an accident”.
[32] Although the benefits listed in s. 88(1) are mandatory, ICBC has a limited power to challenge an insured’s claim made under that subsection. This power is derived from the requirements that the expenses incurred must be both necessary and reasonable.  In determining whether a particular treatment is necessary and reasonable, ICBC may require a medical examination of the insured under s. 99(1) of the Regulation. ICBC may also demand a medical certificate under s. 98(1) of the Regulation or a medical report under s. 28 of the Act. ..
[56] Physical therapy is a mandatory benefit under s. 88(1) but it is not defined in the Regulation. The dictionary definition and the definition in the related regulatory scheme define physical therapy as including massage. The Health Professions Act defines “health profession”.  Regulation of health professions, such as physical therapy, includes the restriction of the provision of a designated service to a person registered to practise that specific designated health profession. Massage therapy is designated as a health profession and is governed by the Massage Therapists Regulation. Registration with the College of Massage Therapists is required and no person other than a registrant may practise massage therapy.
[57] In light of the provisions to which I have referred, ICBC’s submission that including massage therapy as a benefit payable under s. 88(1) would open the floodgates to all manner of questionable procedures is unsupportable.
[58] While the Regulation does not refer specifically to massage therapy in s. 88(1), I am of the view that, when all of the relevant provisions in the Regulation are read together with the Health Professions Act and its related Regulations, physical therapy may properly be interpreted as including massage therapy.  To be payable under s. 88(1), the other requirements must be met as stated in the section; that is:  “[w]here an insured is injured in an accident for which benefits are provided under this Part, the corporation shall … pay as benefits all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured as a result of the injury for … necessary physical therapy … .”
[59] In this case, the respondents’ doctor recommended massage therapy as part of the infant plaintiffs’ recovery. There is no suggestion that the recommended treatment was unnecessary or provided by someone other than a registered massage therapist, or that the expense was unreasonable.
Tags: bc injury law, ICBC and massage therapy, icbc part 7 benefits, massage therapy and ICBC Part 7 Benefits, Raguin v. ICBC, section 88 insurance (Vehicle) Regulation, Section 88(1) Insurance Vehicle Regulation

Subscribe to the ICBC Law Blog
Subscribe via Email
Visit my Linked In profile
Follow me on Twitter
Visit my JDSupra profile
Visit my Facebook Business page
Free Video Consultations via SKYPE
Media Requests
Client Satisfaction Survey













This site is created by MacIsaac & Company, a British Columbia Personal Injury Lawfirm. This website is not affiliated in any way with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC).This web site is made possible through funding provided by the British Columbia law firm MacIsaac and Company. bc-injury-law.com is designed to empower individuals to better understand their ICBC Claim and the process involved in dealing with ICBC. This web site is offered for information only and is not claim-specific legal advice. Use of the site and sending or receiving information through it does not establish a solicitor / client relationship. Links to and from this website do not state or imply a relationship between MacIsaac and Company and the linked entity.
December 1st, 2011 at 10:33 am
Again Erik is on the money, massage in often a large part of restoring one’s health without the side effects of dangerous drugs.In some situations cause a medical condition worse then the car crash and can infact result in “CHEMICAL REACTION WHICH IN TURN CAN BE FATAL!”massage has long been known as an effective method of increasing blood flow,supporting movement before a chronic condition ensues which could mean life long dissability.Wise move for all involved.Thanks for this posting.
December 2nd, 2011 at 8:56 am
[…] those of you who are visiting this site looking for more information addressing this topic you can click here to read my previous post addressing this development and here for my archived posts addressing issues concerning ICBC’s no-fault benefits. If […]
March 27th, 2012 at 8:22 am
To a layperson such as myself, the ruling appears to clearly say: “[w]here an insured is injured in an accident for which benefits are provided under this Part, the corporation shall … pay as benefits all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured as a result of the injury for … necessary physical therapy … .”
However, ICBC will only pay $23 per visit even though the actual cost is $80.
Do you have any comments on why ICBC is legally justified in only paying 30% of the cost and somehow labeling that as “reasonable”. Should they not be required to pay the full amount?
March 27th, 2012 at 8:33 am
Thanks for your comment Ray. The reason is that this case deals with ‘no-fault’ benefits. ICBC’s obligations to pay these are capped at the amounts prescribed under Part 7 of BC’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act. As you rightly observe these amounts are a far cry from the actual cost of therapy.
The balance of such payments are commonly referred to as ‘user fees.’. These costs are typically recoverable from the at fault motorist (or their insurance company) in a tort claim. The at fault motorist’s insurer, however, is typically under no obligation to pay these until a final settlement is reached or a court order is made. In the meantime the plaintiff is often left with the burden of the expense.
Yours truly,
Erik
March 27th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Thank you very much for the quick reply. Of course, not the response I was hoping for but the world doesn’t always work the way we wish it did!!
I really appreciate your website, it is very easy to read and always has interesting content.
Ray
March 27th, 2012 at 9:42 am
My pleasure Ray. Thanks for visiting.
Yours truly,
Erik