Category: Minor Injury Guideline

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to seven disputed medical benefits. He argued that he suffered psychological injuries and chronic pain. Adjudicator Ferguson rejected the claims. He held that the claimant failed to provide evidence of psychological impairment. He also held that claimant failed to prove that his pain symptoms were not clinically associated sequelae to his minor injuries.

The claimant argued that his injuries fell outside the MIG and sought medical benefits. Adjudicator Mazerolle held that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG. Adjudicator Mazerolle preferred the insurer’s psychological assessment that noted the claimant exhibited adjustment reactions which were mild symptoms and treatable within the MIG. The insurer’s report relied on seven psychometric tests, whereas the claimant’s report relied on three tests. Additionally, the insurer’s report found validity issues which demonstrated potential over-reporting of symptoms, whereas the claimant’s report exclusively used self-reporting measures. With regard to chronic pain, Adjudicator Mazerolle held that the claimant failed to demonstrate that it was not clinically associated sequelae to the soft tissue injuries caused by the accident.

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various treatment plans. Adjudicator Goela found that the claimant was subject to the $3,500 limit under the MIG. The Adjudicator found that the claimant did not provide evidence of a pre-existing injury that would prevent her from a full recovery if limited by the MIG. The Adjudicator elaborated on many factors that indicated that the claimant’s injuries were minor. She explained that the diagnostic imaging reports did not provide any data that could point to a physical cause for the claimant’s pain. Also, while the claimant had self-reported to her chiropractor that he was in sharp and constant pain, this self reporting could not be reconciled with other data that consistently noted that the claimant had a normal range of motion. Next, while a chronic pain specialist believed that the claimant suffered depression and PTSD, this specialist was not a psychologist, and so his opinion on the claimant’s psychological impairments was outside his scope of expertise. The Adjudicator found that the claimant’s injuries were minor because the claimant could continue her current employment, with tasks adapted at her own discretion. Finally, the Adjudicator found that claimant did not have a pre-existing injury that entitled her to benefits beyond the MIG limit, because she did not provide evidence of a pre-existing injury that would prevent her from a full recovery if limited by the MIG.