Category: Minor Injury Guideline

The claimant sought removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant suffer a minor injury because he failed to prove that he suffered chronic pain as a result of the accident. Neither the claimant’s doctor nor the insurer’s assessors came to such a conclusion and the claimant continued to live a normal and busy life.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two treatment plans. Adjudicator Mather dismissed the claim. She held that the claimant suffered predominantly minor injuries, and that the claimant failed to prove that she suffered chronic pain or psychological injuries.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to five medical benefits. Adjudicator Mather concluded that the claimant suffered minor injuries. There was no evidence of psychological impairment, and the claimant’s self-reports of pain did not substantiate a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome. There was also no evidence of pre-existing conditions.

The claimant sought entitlement to treatment outside of the MIG and various medical benefits. Adjudicator Victor held that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG and that the disputed medical benefits were not payable. With respect to the claimant’s submissions that she suffered from chronic pain, Adjudicator Victor held that as the claimant’s pain did not result in a functional impairment, she had not suffered chronic pain such that her injuries fell outside the MIG. In arriving at her conclusion, Adjudicator Victor relied on the claimant’s reporting one year after the accident that the accident had not changed her relationship with her husband or children nor affected her lifestyle and work. Adjudicator Victor noted that the claimant maintained two jobs post-accident for which she did not require modified duties. With respect to the disputed medical benefits, Adjudicator held that as she found the claimant’s injuries within the MIG, the claimant was not entitled to medical benefits that exceeded the MIG limits.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two treatment plans for psychological therapy. Adjudicator Grant concluded that the claimant did not suffer a psychological injury related to the accident. He further noted that the claimant indicated that he was unlikely to find psychological treatment helpful.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two treatment plans for physical therapy. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG. He held that the claimant’s lower back pain was not caused by the accident, but rather after lifting something heavy. He also noted that the claimant did not report any lower back pain for the first six months of 2016 (the accident was in November 2015).

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three treatment plans for physical therapy and assistive devices. Adjudicator Kepman concluded that the claimant suffered minor injuries and dismissed the claims for medical benefits. She accepted that the claimant suffered from chronic pain in 2014 (one year after the accident), but held that there was no evidence of ongoing chronic pain at the time the treatment plans were submitted. Adjudicator Kepman also noted that the claimant failed to produce medical records which were ordered produced at the Case Conference.