Category: Minor Injury Guideline

Gordon v. Royal & Sun Alliance (19-012000)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various medical benefits. The insurer scheduled IEs, which the claimant refused to attend, arguing that the insurer should conduct a paper review. Vice Chair McGee rejected the claimant’s argument that section 44(3)(a) bars the insurer from requesting an in-person IE for a MIG determination. Moreover, the benefits in dispute were not payable within the MIG as they would have exceeded the funding available for minor injuries. Vice Chair McGee found that the Notices of Examination satisfied the requirements of section 44(5) as they clearly stated the medical and other reasons for the examination. The claimant had not provided a valid explanation for his non-attendance and in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to permit his application to proceed. The claimant was barred from proceeding with the LAT dispute.

P.M. v. Aviva General Insurance (19-002717)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to medical benefits for physiotherapy, massage therapy as well as the cost of psychological and physiatry assessments, and completion of an OCF-3. The claimant also sought a special award. Adjudicator Lake found the claimant’s injuries were outside of the MIG due to her chronic pain, but held she was only entitled to medical benefits for physical treatment and the cost of the psychology assessment. Adjudicator Lake also considered the claimant’s section 38 denials of benefits, and held that there were deficiencies. The insurer referred to the $3,500 funding limit under the MIG and enclosed portions of the SABS relating to the MIG, but did not advise the claimant that the MIG applied to her accident related impairments. Further, the insurer never cured the deficient notices, so benefits were payable if incurred more than 10 business days after submission. She also rejected the argument that benefits had to be incurred to be payable under section 38(11), as the section only said that benefits had to “related to” the period of non-compliance, not that they needed to be incurred. Adjudicator Lake rejected the special award claim, reasoning that the insurer’s failure to comply with its obligations under section 38 of the SABS did not amount to an unreasonable withholding or delay in payment of benefits.

S.S. v. The Personal Insurance Company (19-004026)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and removal from the MIG. Adjudicator Lake concluded that the claimant was not entitled to IRBs, but that his injuries fell outside of the MIG. With regard to IRBs, the claimant failed to prove that he was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment. A note from the claimant’s family physician was not persuasive because the claimant had not attended the physician to get the note nor had he attended for six months. The claimant also was not attending for any physical treatment for his symptoms. Regarding the MIG, Adjudicator Lake accepted that the claimant suffered from psychological symptoms including anxiety.

B.S. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (19-001828)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to physiotherapy and two assessments. Adjudicator Maleki-Yazdi found that the claimant’s injuries fell outside of the MIG and that the claimant was entitled to all three treatment plans. Additionally, she concluded that the insurer’s section 38 notices were deficient. All three denials were similarly worded and simply stated that there was no “compelling evidence that shows that your injuries do not fall within the Minor Injury Guideline.” No further details regarding the “compelling evidence” was provided. The adjudicator held that the denials were vague and did not provide the claimant with meaningful explanation for the denials to allow her to make an informed decision about whether to accept or dispute the decision. Subsequent denials following the IEs did provide meaningful explanation, but the insurer would have been required to pay for all incurred treatment up to the date of the proper denial.

J.T. v. Primmum Insurance Company (18-009043)

The self-represented claimant argued that he suffered a catastrophic impairment following a collision in a parking lot. The insurer’s position was that the claimant suffered a minor injury. Adjudicator Manigat concluded that the claimant suffered a minor injury and dismissed the catastrophic impairment determination. No medical evidence was provided by the claimant in support of his position, nor was an expert opinion provided. While an OCF-19 was completed by the family physician, no referral was ever made for further investigation. The IE reports found that the claimant suffered soft tissue injuries and the claimant did not provide any evidence of a pre-existing condition.

M.V. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (18-011523)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and removal from the MIG. Vice Chair Farlam concluded that the claimant was not entitled to IRBs and that his injuries fell within the MIG. The medical evidence provided showed only soft tissue injuries, and insufficient objective evidence was led regarding chronic pain or psychological impairment. There were also multiple inconsistencies with the claimant’s reporting that called into question the medical opinions based on the claimant’s self-reported symptoms. Regarding IRBs, the claimant himself said during IE assessments that he was not disabled from working from a psychological perspective, and no evidence from the family physician was submitted regarding the claimant’s ability to return to work.

C.G. v. The Guarantee Company of North America (17-007300)

The claimant had a number of pre-accident injuries and impairments. She suffered an exacerbation of her conditions in the accident. She sought entitlement to NEBs, removal from the MIG, and two assessment costs. The insurer argued that the claimant’s impairments were not caused by the accident. Adjudicator Johal accepted that the accident did cause an exacerbation of pre-existing injuries that would otherwise have not occurred. She also concluded that the claimant suffered chronic pain as a result of the accident given that her pain persisted for more than six months, and her injuries therefore did not fall within the MIG; this conclusion was made without a specific diagnosis of chronic pain. The claimed psychological assessment was awarded, but the denied in-home assessment was not as the medical evidence suggested that the claimant remained independent with personal care. The claim for NEBs was also dismissed. The claimant failed to provide evidence that her post-accident life was significantly different than her pre-accident life.

C.G. v. The Guarantee Company of North America (17-007300)

The claimant had a number of pre-accident injuries and impairments. She suffered an exacerbation of her conditions in the accident. She sought entitlement to NEBs, removal from the MIG, and two assessment costs. The insurer argued that the claimant’s impairments were not caused by the accident. Adjudicator Johal accepted that the accident did cause an exacerbation of pre-existing injuries that would otherwise have not occurred. She also concluded that the claimant suffered chronic pain as a result of the accident given that her pain persisted for more than six months, and her injuries therefore did not fall within the MIG; this conclusion was made without a specific diagnosis of chronic pain. The claimed psychological assessment was awarded, but the denied in-home assessment was not as the medical evidence suggested that the claimant remained independent with personal care. The claim for NEBs was also dismissed. The claimant failed to provide evidence that her post-accident life was significantly different than her pre-accident life.

S.S.L. v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (19-004473)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to IRBs, two treatment plans for chiropractic services, and cost of examination. Prior to the hearing, the claimant withdrew her claims for the medical benefits and the costs of examinations. Adjudicator Norris held that the claimant could not dispute the MIG if no medical or rehabilitation benefits were in dispute. Adjudicator Norris concluded that the claimant was not entitled to IRBs because there was no compelling evidence to support her claim that she was disabled from working as an event planner. The evidence was clear that the claimant did not suffer physical or psychological impairment that would prevent her from completing her essential tasks of employment.

J.R. v. Aviva Insurance Company (19-006160)

The claimant disputed his MIG determination, as well as entitlement to attendant care benefits in the amount of $138.09 per month and various medical benefits. Adjudicator Boyce found the claimant to be unsuccessful on all of the disputed issues. The claimant’s argument for removal from the MIG centred around his psychological impairments, relying on a psychological pre-screen interview report. Adjudicator Boyce did not find the pre-screen report compelling because it included no preliminary diagnosis or suggestion that the claimant met DSM-V criteria. Further, the claimant’s family doctor records made no reference to accident-related psychological complaints. As the claimant’s injuries fell within the MIG, he was not entitled to attendant care benefits or the disputed non-MIG treatment plans.

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