The claimant sought a determination that his impairments were outside of the MIG and entitlement to one treatment plan for psychological services. This was the claimant’s second LAT application relating to MIG determination. The adjudicator in the hearing relating to the first application (Adjudicator Sewrattan) found that the claimant’s injuries were minor. When the second LAT application was filed, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis of res judicata. The motions adjudicator dismissed the motion on the basis that it was premature, finding that there was a possibility of new evidence being submitted for the second application that was not available at the first hearing. The second application then proceeded to a written hearing before Adjudicator Punyarthi, who held that only evidence that had become available since the release of Adjudicator Sewrattan’s decision would be considered. Adjudicator Punyarthi found that the claimant’s injuries were minor and that the proposed treatment was not payable as it was outside of the MIG limits.
