Category: Minor Injury Guideline

L.Y.L. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-004659)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to further physical therapy. Adjudicator Johal concluded that the claimant suffered predominantly “minor” injuries. Her injuries were soft tissue in nature and there was no evidence of neurological disorder. Furthermore, the claimant did not suffer a pre-existing injury that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.

S.G. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (18-007668)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the decision that his injuries fell within the MIG. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration request, writing that the claimant failed to provide sufficient information to meet the criteria for reconsideration. There were no particulars provided as to the grounds for reconsideration.

M.D.H. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (17-007887)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the decision that his injuries fell within the MIG. Adjudicator Neilson dismissed the reconsideration request. She was not persuaded that the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact, or acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness. She wrote that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test for the MIG and considered the medical evidence available.

C.H. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-002710)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to medical benefits for psychological treatment. Adjudicator Go concluded that the claimant suffered psychological injuries as a result of the accident. The treatment for psychological therapy was reasonable and necessary.

S.G. v. Aviva General Insurance (18-007668)

The claimant sought a determination that his impairments were outside of the MIG and entitlement to two treatment plans, one for psychological treatment and another for an orthopaedic assessment. Adjudicator Braun concluded that the claimant’s physical injuries were minor, but that he had sustained a psychological injury which exempted him from the MIG limit. The Adjudicator noted that both the claimant’s and the respondent’s assessors had concluded that the claimant sustained psychological impairments as a direct result of the accident. The fact that the specific diagnoses of the assessors differed did not matter. Despite the claimant’s psychological impairments, Adjudicator Braun found that the psychological treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary. He felt that the claimant’s post-accident activity level suggested that he had been able to achieve the goals of the treatment plan on his own, without psychological intervention. The Adjudicator also found the orthopaedic assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as there was no evidence to suggest that the claimant experienced any ongoing musculoskeletal pain or physical complications arising from the accident.

G.S. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (17-004847)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant’s injuries fell outside of the MIG due to chronic pain. Vice Chair Mather dismissed the reconsideration and held that the Tribunal had not made a significant error in law and had not violated the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal had considered the medical evidence, which supported the legal conclusions. The Tribunal’s reasons addressed the parties’ arguments, and made clear why the claimant was removed from the MIG.

N.R. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-00912)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to further physical therapy and a psychological assessment. Adjudicator Mather concluded that the claimant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, which adversely affected his wellbeing; the MIG did not apply to his injuries. Further physical therapy was awarded based on the goal of reducing pain and increasing the claimant’s activities of normal living. The psychological assessment was not payable because the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a psychological impairment.

M.F.X. v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (18-004282)

The claimant argued that he suffered a non-minor injury due to chronic pain and sought entitlement to further chiropractic treatment. Adjudicator Norris rejected the claims. He reviewed the six factors outlined by the American Medical Association Guides in determining whether the claimant suffered chronic pain syndrome. The claimant failed to submit evidence regarding any of the factors and relied on a single mention of chronic pain in a treatment plan.

L.F. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (18-004517)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits. Adjudicator Fricot concluded that the claimant sustained a predominantly minor injury, and that there was no exacerbation of pre-accident injuries. Adjudicator Fricot noted that the claimant returned to work on a full time basis after the accident, and that reports of pain were only made long after the accident.

L.V.D. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (18-001286)

The claimant sought entitlement to three treatment plans and removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Mazerolle concluded that the claimant suffered a minor injury, and was not entitled to further medical benefits. He noted that the claimant had returned to pre-accident activities, and did not suffer from chronic pain or psychological impairment.