Category: Minor Injury Guideline

C.S. v. Unifund Assurance Company (16-000087)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date October 26, 2016
No Comments on C.S. v. Unifund Assurance Company (16-000087)

The claimant sought entitlement to four treatment plans and removal from the MIG. As a preliminary issue, the insurer argued that two treatment plans were barred by the limitation period. Adjudicator An concluded that one treatment plan was statute barred, but that the claimant had applied to the LAT in a timely fashion for the second treatment plan. In terms of the MIG, Adjudicator An concluded that the claimant had sustained minor injuries in the accident, but had a pre-existing condition (severe degenerative disc disease) which would prevent recovery under the $3,500 cap. No evidence was submitted regarding the treatment plans; Adjudicator An therefore did not award them.

A.P. v. Aviva Canada (16-000045)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date September 1, 2016
No Comments on A.P. v. Aviva Canada (16-000045)

The claimant sought further IRBs and medical benefits out of the MIG. Vice Chair Flude held that the claimant did not suffer from a pre-existing condition, was not suffering chronic pain syndrome, and could perform the essential tasks of her employment. IRBs were denied and the claimant was restricted to MIG level benefits.

K.P. v. Aviva Canada Inc. (16-000046)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date September 1, 2016
No Comments on K.P. v. Aviva Canada Inc. (16-000046)

The claimant sought medical benefits outside of the MIG. Vice Chair Flude considered the list of injuries the claimant claimed to have sustained in the accident. He held that there was no evidence provided linking the injuries to the accident, or to show that the injuries did not fall under any of the “minor injury” elements. He concluded that the claimant’s injuries were predominantly minor injuries.

S.S. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (16-000084)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date August 30, 2016
No Comments on S.S. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (16-000084)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG, and entitlement to a treatment plan for physical therapy. Adjudicator Theoharis concluded that the claimant had sustained a “minor injury” and did not suffer a pre-existing condition that would prevent him from being treated under the $3,500 limit. The claimed treatment plan was denied.

Contact Us

Contact Us

Contact Us