D.V. v. Unifund Assurance Company (17-006637)

The claimant sought a determination that his impairments were outside of the MIG as well as entitlement to medical benefits proposed in one treatment plan. The claimant argued that he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain. The parties agreed that chronic pain as a result of the accident may remove a claimant from the MIG. Adjudicator Ferguson found that the section 25 orthopaedic report was of limited persuasive value because it was performed three years after the accident and failed to discuss subsequent injuries in the applicant’s medical history that might raise questions about causation. Adjudicator Ferguson found that claimant was within the MIG and dismissed the application.