Category: Minor Injury Guideline

H.L. v. Co-operators General Insurance Company (17-006816)

The claimant sought entitlement to a medical treatment plans. The insurer was previously successful in a prior hearing and obtained a decision in which the claimant’s injuries were said to be governed by the MIG. The claimant further appealed that decision and a Divisional Court upheld the previous ruling. Accordingly, the insurer sought a preliminary motion to preclude the claimant’s new claim on the grounds of res judicata. Adjudicator Cezary Paluch reviewed the new claims of the claimant and determined that the claims were different than the previous arbitration. While it was acknowledged that the MIG was decided previously, Adjudicator Paluch noted that the claimant may have new grounds to warrant removal and thus it was too early to rule whether res judicata applied. As a result, the claimant was allowed to continue with the new claims.

N.F. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (17-000456)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical benefits. In addition to a MIG position, the insurer asserted that the claimant was barred from bringing a claim as notice to claim accident benefits was not provided within seven days (or reasonably thereafter) of the MVA, pursuant to sections 32 and 55. Adjudicator S.F. Mather reviewed the circumstances leading up to the claimant providing an application for accident benefits three months following the MVA and determined that the time it took to bring the claim was not unreasonable. Although the application was incomplete, Adjudicator Mather ruled it was reasonable to obtain the missing information on review of the overall claim. With respect to the medical benefits claimed, Adjudicator Mather ruled that the notice letters did not take a position on the MIG and did not provide medical reasons for the denial. As a result, the insurer was precluded from taking a MIG position, and therefore must pay for the treatment plans claimed. No discussion of whether the treatment was reasonable was needed, since the provisions make it clear an insurer shall pay for treatment it fails to provide notice to, until the notice is cured. Therefore the treatment plans claimed were deemed payable.

Applicant v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance (16-002278)

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.

I.A. v. Unifund Claims Inc (17-000785)

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.

Applicant v. Unifund Claims Inc. (17-001129)

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.

Applicant v. The Co-operators (16-004674)

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.

Applicant v. Waterloo Insurance (17-001265)

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.

G.C. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (17-001855)

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.

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance (17-002240)

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.

Applicant v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (17-000665)

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.

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles

Powered by Crow & Pitcher

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com