The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three medical benefits for physical therapy. Adjudicator Victor held that the claimant’s injuries were predominantly minor. She preferred the opinions of the IE assessors. She also noted that the claimant had returned to work a few days after the accident.
Category: Minor Injury Guideline
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three medical benefits. Adjudicator Boyce dismissed the claim and held that the claimant had abandoned the application due to his failure to submit and written submissions or participate in any of the preliminary stages of the LAT dispute.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits for further physiotherapy. Adjudicator Mazerolle concluded that the claimant suffered a psychological impairment as a result of the accident, and was not restricted by the MIG limits. He awarded the two claimed medical benefits, writing that such treatment was promoting the claimant’s recovery.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to four medical benefits. Adjudicator Norris held that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG. He rejected the arguments that the claimant suffered from pre-existing injuries, psychological injuries, or chronic pain.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to four medical benefits for physical therapy and medical cannabis. Adjudicator Kershaw rejected the claimant’s argument that he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, or a psychological impairment. She also rejected that his pre-existing injuries may have prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to physiotherapy. Adjudicator Maleki-Yazdi concluded that the claimant suffered chronic pain syndrome, which entitled him to non-MIG benefits. The proposed physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary for improving the claimant’s pain level, functionality, and strength.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment. Adjudicator Hines concluded that the claimant’s injuries fell under the MIG. The claimant provided no evidence as to how his injuries interfered with his job, and there were few references to pain in his family physician’s records. There was also no evidence of a psychological diagnosis.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits for psychological treatment. Adjudicator Norris concluded that the claimant suffered from psychological injuries as a result of the accident, which removed him from the MIG. The proposed medical benefits were found reasonable and necessary.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that his injuries fell within the MIG and that he was not entitled to claimed medical benefits. The issue of the MIG was accidentally included in the LAT application, and the claimant had been removed from the MIG prior to the hearing based on an IE. Adjudicator Lester held that it was an error for the Tribunal to make a decision on the MIG when it was not an issue in dispute. The error resulted in the medical benefits not being adjudicated. The hearing adjudicator was ordered seized of the matter to make a determination on whether the medical benefits were reasonable and necessary.
The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs, removal from the MIG, and various medical benefits. She alleged that the accident aggravated injuries from an earlier accident. Adjudicator Sharda held that the claimant suffered from pre-existing psychological impairments and chronic pain, which were worsened by the accident, and entitled to her treatment outside of the MIG; further physiotherapy was also awarded. Finally, Adjudicator Sharda awarded NEBs on the basis that the claimant’s pre-accident activities of daily living were restricted. The claimant’s affidavit evidence went unchallenged by the insurer.