S.M. v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company

The claimant sought entitlement to medical benefits and removal from the MIG. The insurer argued that one of the treatment plans was barred by the limitation period, and should be dismissed. Adjudicator Norris agreed that one of the treatment plans could not be disputed because it was dispute more than two years after the denial. Turning to the medical evidence, the adjudicator concluded that the claimant suffered soft tissue injuries and that insufficient evidence of a psychological injury was placed before the Tribunal.