Category: Minor Injury Guideline

The claimant sought removal from the MIG, entitlement to attendant care benefits, and various medical benefits. Adjudicator Reilly concluded that the claimant’s injuries were predominantly minor. She held that there was no evidence that pre-existing high blood pressure would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG; that the claimant did not suffer a psychological disorder; that he did not display symptoms of post-concussive injuries; and did not suffer chronic pain syndrome. She noted that the claimant had not made complaints about most of these alleged conditions to his family physician, and he had returned to work on a full time basis within a few months of the accident. Finally, Adjudicator Reilly noted that while a subsequent accident may have cause non-minor injuries, the claimant had not proven that “but for” the subject accident he suffered a non-minor injury.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits. Adjudicator Ferguson concluded that the claimant suffered predominantly minor injuries. The medical records showed the claimant suffered soft tissue injuries. Though medical imaging two years after the accident showed a tear in the shoulder, no evidence connected the tear to the accident. Further, surveillance of the claimant showed the claimant working and engaging in normal activities of daily living without apparent difficulty.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and various medical benefits. Adjudicator Parish concluded that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG. The claimant’s injuries were clinically associated sequela to the soft tissue injuries she sustained in the accident. Adjudicator Parish preferred the opinion of the IE assessor, who believed that the claimant’s soft tissue injuries were improving. She was critical of the claimant’s experts, who did not consider the effect of a post-accident fall at work and who failed to connect injuries seen on imaging with the accident.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to five treatment plans. Adjudicator Boyce concluded that the claimant’s injuries were minor. Adjudicator Boyce held that the claimant failed to provide evidence of chronic pain and that pain lasting more than six months was not sufficient proof for removal from the MIG. He also held that the claimant did not suffer a psychological impairment, preferring the IE assessor’s conclusions that there was no objective evidence of a DSM-5 diagnosis.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to five treatment plans. Adjudicator Boyce concluded that the claimant’s injuries were minor. Adjudicator Boyce held that the claimant failed to provide evidence of chronic pain and that pain lasting more than six months was not sufficient proof for removal from the MIG. He also held that the claimant did not suffer a psychological impairment, preferring the IE assessor’s conclusions that there was no objective evidence of a DSM-5 diagnosis.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to chronic pain treatment. Adjudicator Grant dismissed the claims. He accepted the opinions of the IE assessors that the claimant had normal physical functional limits and that no diagnosable psychological condition was demonstrated.

The claimant sought treatment outside of the MIG, entitlement to a disputed chiropractic treatment plan, a special award, and interest. The claimant argued that she had been removed from the MIG as the insurer had approved previous treatment plans above the MIG limits. The insurer, however, claimed that these approvals were an administrative error, and not an admission that the claimant fell outside of the MIG. Adjudicator Purdy agreed with the insurer, and held that payments above MIG limits due to administrative errors did not result in a claimant being automatically removed from the MIG. Adjudicator Purdy further held that the claimant’s injuries warranted treatment within the MIG, and denied entitlement to the benefits sought or the granting of a special award.