Category: Minor Injury Guideline

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to a psychological assessment. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant suffered minor injuries. The claimant failed to prove evidence of a pre-existing condition, a chronic pain condition, or a psychological condition. He noted that the records from the family physician did not support the position advanced by the claimant.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and three medical benefits for psychological and physical services. Adjudicator Norris held that the claimant suffered minor injuries. He noted that a partial muscle tear fell within the definition of “minor injury”. He also wrote that the claimant’s family physician’s records did not show evidence of a psychological injury. Finally, there was no evidence of pre-existing injury that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.

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.