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 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.
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the denial letter for a psychological assessment was deficient and that the insurer was barred from applying the MIG; the assessment was also found reasonable and necessary. Vice Chair Lester dismissed the reconsideration. She held that the Tribunal had not violated the rules of procedural fairness or natural justice. She also held that the Tribunal had not made a significant error of law or fact such that a different result would have been reached.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits. Adjudicator Grant concluded that the claimant suffered minor injuries. There was no evidence of impairments falling outside of the MIG definition.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits. Adjudicator Grant concluded that the claimant suffered minor injuries. There was no evidence of pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, or chronic pain syndrome.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG, and entitlement to ACBs and various medical benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant was barred from proceeding to a hearing due to his failure to attend an IE addressing attendant care benefits. Vice Chair Helt concluded that the claimant was not barred from proceeding with his claim for ACBs because the IE notices contained the wrong address for the IE location. In terms of the claimed benefits, Vice Chair Helt found that the claimant suffered from psychological injuries falling outside of the MIG. She awarded the claimed psychological assessment and therapy, but held that the proposed physical therapy was not reasonable and necessary. Finally, in terms of the ACBs, Vice Chair Helt concluded that the claimant did not require personal care and that he had not incurred any attendant care expenses.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits. Adjudicator Grant found that the claimant suffered from minor injuries. He rejected the argument that the claimant suffered from chronic pain syndrome because there was no evidence of the claimant having impaired functionality.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three treatment plans and two assessments. Adjudicator Grant concluded that the claimant suffered from psychological injuries which was not a minor injury. He awarded the proposed psychological assessment, but rejected the proposed treatment plans for physical therapy and the proposed attendant care assessment.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits. Adjudicator Sharda found that the claimant failed to prove that her injuries fell outside of the MIG. There was little evidence of psychological impairment causing a loss of functional ability.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Powered by Crow & Pitcher
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850