The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to one treatment plan. Adjudicator Anwar held that the claimant’s suffered pre-existing conditions that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG and development of chronic pain. He relied upon the expert reports completed for the claimant, which detailed pre-existing injuries. The insurer argued that the Tribunal could not remove the claimant from the MIG without actually receiving and reviewing the clinical records from the claimant’s physician (which had not been provided to the insurer either). Adjudicator Anwar disagreed with the insurer, and wrote that the claimant’s experts had sufficiently detailed the pre-existing issues. He also noted that the insurer had not made any attempt to obtain the claimant’s clinical notes and records at any point (including the Case Conference). The adjudicator did not award the claimed treatment plan because the claimant did not explain what made the passive treatment reasonable and necessary, particularly given the claimant’s failure to respond to earlier passive treatment.
