Category: Medical Benefits

P.I. v. Aviva Insurance Company (16-001320)

The claimant sought entitlement to further medical benefits and removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Sewrattan concluded that the claimant had not proven an ongoing psychological injury or physical injury that fell outside of the “minor injury” definition. There was also insufficient evidence submitted by the claimant to prove that injuries arising from an earlier motor vehicle accident would prevent maximal recovery under the $3,500 minor injury limits. Entitlement to the claimed medical benefits was denied.

Applicant v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company (16-003564)

The claimant sought entitlement to one psychological treatment plan. The insurer denied the plan and cited the excessive progress report fees as one of the reasons the plan was not reasonable and necessary. Adjudicator Lori Marzinotto evaluated the Ontario Psychological Association Guidelines for Assessment and Treatment in Insurance Claims and agreed that the treatment plan was not reasonable and therefore not payable.

P.J. v. Continental Casualty Insurance Company (16-004272)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of treatment plans. The insurer asserted a MIG defense. On review of the evidence, Adjudicator Nicole Treksler ruled the claimant’s injuries, including chronic pain, were outside of the MIG. The treatment sought was deemed payable. The claimant also sought costs for the insurer failing to provide log notes as requested. Costs were denied as the claimant did not sufficiently substantiate the claim under Rule 19.1.

M.Z. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance (16-002126)

The claimant sought entitlement to three medical benefits, including a vocational assessment. She was not employed at the time of the accident. Adjudicator Anwar awarded all three medical benefits on the basis of medical evidence showing potential lumbar spine injuries. He also awarded the vocational assessment reasoning that it was appropriate for the claimant to identify limitations and evaluate potential future career prospects.

S.S. v. Aviva General Insurance (17-001183)

The claimant sought entitlement to two treatment plans. The insurer denied the plans and cited insurer’s examination reports as justification. Adjudicator Christopher Ferguson reviewed the medical reports on both sides and noted contradictions in the claimant’s self-reporting. Additionally, one of the treatment plans sought was not included as evidence. The insurer’s evidence was considered more credible and the claims were deemed not payable.

Applicant v. Aviva General Insurance (17-001178)

The claimant sought entitlement to a psychological treatment plan. The insurer denied the treatment plan and cited a psychological insurer’s examination report as justification. Adjudicator Christopher Ferguson reviewed the medical reports on both sides and noted contradictions in the claimant’s self-reporting. The insurer’s evidence was considered more credible and the treatment plan was deemed not payable.

N.K. v. Unica Insurance Inc. (17-001473)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to medical benefits. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant suffered a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, which were not minor injuries. The claimant was therefore removed from the MIG. The sought medical benefits were denied because the claimant and his treatment providers had not explained how the proposed treatment would address and treat the concussion and post-concussion injuries.

T.S. v. Aviva General Insurance (17-000835)

The primary issue in dispute was whether the claimant sustained a predominantly minor injury as a result of the accident. Adjudicator Ferguson rejected the claimant’s allegations of psychological injury. He also rejected the submission that the claimant’s chronic pain was not covered by the definition of “minor injury.” Adjudicator Ferguson accepted that the claimant did suffer chronic pain syndrome as a result of the accident. However, Adjudicator Ferguson concluded based on the medical evidence that the claimant’s chronic pain was a clinically associated sequelae of his minor injuries. He was therefore restricted to $3,500 in medical benefits. The claimed treatment plans were denied

Y.X.Y. v. The Personal Insurance Company (16-000438)

The primary issue in dispute was whether the claimant sustained a predominantly minor injury as a result of the accident. Adjudicator Neilsen explained that ongoing pain alone was insufficient to remove the claimant from the “minor injury” definition. Rather, she had to prove chronic pain syndrome. The ongoing pain had to be accompanied by some functional impairment. She wrote that a diagnosis of chronic pain without any discussion of the level of pain, its effect on the person’s function, or whether the pain is bearable without treatment will not meet the claimant’s burden to show that the chronic pain is more than mere sequelae of the “minor injury” sustained in the accident. The medical evidence submitted by the claimant was insufficient to prove a non-minor injury, and Adjudicator Neilsen held that the claimant’s pain was mere sequelae of the minor injury. Adjudicator Neilsen also rejected the allegations of psychological injury based on the inconsistencies in the medical report and the claimant’s self-reporting. The only benefit awarded was $215 for a psychological assessment, which is provided for in the Minor Injury Guideline.

Applicant v. Jevco Insurance Company (16-002000)

The claimant was involved in a serious accident and had sustained ongoing physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments. He had returned to doing some work on a part-time basis, but was unable to engage in full time work or retraining. Adjudicator Truong held that the claimant was entitled to post 104-week IRBs based on a holistic analysis of the claimant’s post-accident abilities and impairments. It was also noted that the claimant had been approved for CPP Disability Benefits. In terms of the catastrophic impairment, Adjudicator Truong determined that the claimant suffered a combined 56 percent whole person impairment, which qualified as a catastrophic impairment. The difference of opinion between the parties had been based on whether it was appropriate to combine the impairment rating for mental status impairment rating under Chapter 4 of the AMA Guides with the mental and behavioural impairment rating from Chapter 14 of the AMA Guides, or whether doing so amounted to “overcounting”. Adjudicator Truong held that it was appropriate to combine the ratings from both Chapters 4 and 14 in this case, because the claimant had suffered a cerebral impairment (which was counted under Chapter 4), and a psychological impairment (which was counted under Chapter 14). In terms of the medical benefits claimed, Adjudicator Truong held that the claimant had not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that the claims were reasonable and necessary.