Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (17-002688)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical benefits for physical and psychological treatment. The insurer asserted a MIG position. Adjudicator S.F. Mather, on review of the medical evidence, determined the claimant’s injuries fell outside of the MIG. The treatment plans that addressed the injuries removing the claimant from the MIG were found payable, while the remainder of the plans were dismissed. During the course of the proceedings, the claimant sought to add jurisprudence claiming the MIG was unconstitutional; however, Adjudicator Mather denied the adding of the case law to the book of authorities, since to do so would import a constitutional question without the proper notice to the Attorney General’s office.

Applicant v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company (17-000846)

The claimant sought entitlement to medical, attendance care, and income replacement benefits. The insurer asserted a MIG position. Adjudicator Nicole Treksler, on review of the evidence, determined that the claimant’s injuries were governed by the MIG and that the claimant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of employment in the face of evidence that the claimant returned to work. Since the MIG was said to govern, the claimant’s attendant care claim was dismissed summarily pursuant to section 14.

Applicant v. Travelers Canada (17-002177)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical treatment plans. The insurer asserted a MIG designation. Adjudicator Avvy Go reviewed the medical evidence submitted and concluded that the claimant had failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to remove a MIG designation from her claims. All of the claimed treatment plans were dismissed.

Rai v. Aviva Insurance (17-002491)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two treatment plans. Adjudicator Johal concluded that the claimant suffered minor injuries in the accident, and that the claimant’s pre-existing conditions did not prevent recovery under the MIG. The adjudicator was critical of the claimant’s failure to put any medical evidence before the Tribunal that he suffered chronic pain syndrome, or that his pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-001939)

The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs, removal from the MIG, and an in-home assessment. Adjudicator Ferguson rejected all of the claims. In terms of NEBs, the adjudicator wrote that the claimant failed to adduce evidence as to his pre-accident activities and that without a baseline, entitlement to NEBs could not be proven. With regard to the MIG, the adjudicator wrote that the claimant failed to provide medical evidence proving that she suffered psychological injuries or chronic pain, or submit evidence that her pre-existing diabetes, arthritis, and obesity would prevent her from achieving maximal recovery under the MIG.

Applicant v. Royal Sun Alliance (17-001315)

The claimant sought entitlement to a treatment plan, which the insurer denied due to a MIG determination. The claimant asserted the insurer failed to comply with the Notice provisions of section 38 and that the claimant’s pre-existing psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Gemma Harmison determined that the insurer failed to comply with section 38, by not providing Notice within 10 business days. In reviewing the chronology of events, it was noted that despite the date of the correspondence from the insurer, the fact that it was mailed added an additional five business days, thus falling outside the prescribed timelines. Accordingly, the insurer was barred from taking a MIG position. However, because none of the disputed treatment was incurred during the period following, no amounts were found payable. Instead, the treatment plan was evaluated on whether it was reasonable. On review of the evidence, the plan was deemed not reasonable and necessary.

J.D. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (16-004175)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical treatment plans. The insurer asserted a MIG position. Adjudicator Robert Watt, on review of the medical evidence, concluded that the claimant’s injuries were minor and governed by the MIG. Accordingly, the claimant’s claims were dismissed.

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-003557)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant had not submitted evidence that she sustained any injuries more severe than soft tissue injuries, and that the claimant had not proven any pre-existing conditions that would prevent recovery under the MIG.

Applicant v. RBC Insurance Company (16-002047)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical treatment plans. The insurer asserted a MIG position. On review of the medical reports and evidence, Adjudicator Sandeep Johal concluded the claimant provided compelling evidence that the injuries sustained warranted removal from the MIG. The treatment plans were also considered reasonable and necessary. However, despite the claimant seeking a special award, Adjudicator Johal noted no evidence was tendered by the claimant to demonstrate the unreasonable withholding of benefits; the special award claim was dismissed.

Applicant v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-001732)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical treatment plans. The insurer asserted a MIG position. Adjudicator Robert Markovits reviewed the evidence and determined that there was compelling evidence of a pre-existing medical condition preventing recover within the MIG. The treatment plans were considered reasonable and necessary, with a psychological assessment capped at $2,000.00 pursuant to section 25(5)(a). However, an additional $200.00 was also payable for the completion of the OCF-18 pursuant to Superintendent’s Guideline No. 03/14.