Category: Minor Injury Guideline

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three medical benefits. Adjudicator Parish concluded that the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG. She held that the claimant did not suffer psychological injuries or chronic pain. She noted that the claimant’s assessors did not adequately consider objective findings and relied upon subjective reporting without appropriate testing. Further, the chronic pain assessor did not connect the claimant’s reported impairments to the accident. Finally, there was very little reporting to the family doctor regarding pain complaints.

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.