The claimant sought entitlement to a number of treatment plans, both psychological and physical-based. The insurer asserted a MIG position. On review of the medical evidence, Adjudicator Paul Gosio determined the claimant established the injuries sustained were outside the MIG by virtue of a psychological report, which was not rebutted by the insurer. As a result, the psychological treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary, along with a chronic pain and one chiropractic plan.
The claimant sought entitlement to a number of treatment plans. The insurer asserted a MIG position and also raised a limitation defense to one of the treatment plans. Adjudicator Billeh Hamud reviewed the denial letter of the insurer and found it to be clear and unequivocal. However, Adjudicator Hamud also noted that the claimant established a pre-existing injury that prevented recovery within the MIG; namely chronic pain from a previous MVA. Accordingly, the non-limitation barred treatment plans were found payable.
The claimant alleged that his injuries were non-minor and that he was entitled to various medical benefits. Adjudicator Ferguson rejected the claimant’s position. He held that the claimant suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident, and was not suffering psychological impairment as a result of the accident. The adjudicator also rejected the claimant’s position that his pre-existing injuries should remove him from the MIG. The adjudicator noted that the claimant’s experts did not provide evidence that the pre-existing injuries would prevent recovery under the MIG.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG, entitlement to various medical benefits, and entitlement to the cost of an accounting report. The insurer raised a preliminary issue regarding the claimant’s non-attendance at various insurer examinations. Adjudicator Treksler held that the claimant was suffering from chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment. However, she awarded only some of the claimed medical benefits. Four treatment plans were denied due to the claimant’s failure to attend insurer examinations, and one was denied because it was incurred before a treatment plan was submitted. The cost of the accounting report was denied because the adjudicator concluded that the claimant’s entitlement to income replacement benefits was straightforward, and an accounting report was not reasonable and necessary.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to four treatment plans. A number of procedural issues were first addressed. Adjudicator Ferguson rejected the claimant’s objection to the insurer’s expert report being considered by the Tribunal because the issue was not raised until the claimant’s reply submissions. The adjudicator rejected the insurer’s objection about the claimant’s written materials being too long, the insurer’s objection about late medical documents, and the insurer’s objection about the lack of Acknowledgement of Duty form by the claimant’s experts. He reasoned that excluding the impugned records or opinions would prevent him from making a fair and proportional determination on the merits of the case. In terms of the claims, Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant suffered a “minor injury” in the accident, and that he did not have any pre-existing conditions warranting removal from the MIG. He noted that none of the claimant’s experts were professionally qualified to make psychological diagnoses, there were no medical reports formally making a diagnosis, and the practitioners supporting a chronic pain diagnosis had no expertise in the area.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to two medical benefits. Adjudicator Truong held that the claimant had failed to demonstrate that he sustained a non-minor injury in the accident. She was particularly critical of the claimant’s failure to submit specific evidence in support of his claim.
The claimant sought entitlement to non-earner and medical benefits. The insurer denied the benefits and asserted a MIG position. On review of the medical evidence, Adjudicator Avvy Go held the claimant suffered a minor injury with no pre-existing injury and was therefore governed by the MIG. Moreover, the medical evidence did not support the claimant suffering a complete inability to carry on a normal life. Accordingly, the claims were dismissed.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits for physical therapy and psychological therapy. Adjudicator Markovits held that the claimant was suffering from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and that his injuries were therefore non-minor. In terms of the medical benefits sought, Adjudicator Markovits awarded all of the claimed physical therapy and orthopaedic assessment; he denied part of the proposed psychological treatment, a driving re-integration assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.
The claimant sought a determination that his impairments were outside of the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits and costs of examinations. As a preliminary issue, the claimant requested to know the number of reports that each of the IE assessors had provided to the respondent for the last three years and the cost of each report. Adjudicator Paluch denied the claimant’s request for production. He failed to see how information about how many times a particular assessor has been retained by an insurer or how much the report cost would be relevant in assisting the claimant in satisfying that his injuries are not minor or that the proposed treatments are reasonable and necessary. The more appropriate forum to impugn the objectivity of an expert is at a live hearing, not a written preliminary issue hearing.
The claimant submitted four treatment and assessment plans to the insurer. The insurer held that the claimant had suffered minor injuries and that his treatment fell within the Minor Injury Guideline. Adjudicator Anwar explained in order to allege that an injured person has pre-existing medical injuries that required treatment in excess of the MIG limits, the injured person’s healthcare provider must provide specific evidence. First, the injured person must have a pre-existing medical condition that was documented prior to the accident. Second, there must be evidence that the pre-existing medical condition will prevent the person from achieving maximal recovery if the benefits are limited to the MIG cap. Adjudicator Anwar found that the claimant had not submitted sufficient and convincing evidence to prove that he suffered from pre-existing conditions, and was therefore not entitled to treatment beyond the MIG limits.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Powered by Crow & Pitcher
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850