The claimant brought an initial application in which the sole issue being raised was whether her injuries fell under the MIG. Adjudicator Watt found that the LAT did not have jurisdiction under the SABS to determine the issue of MIG in in the absence of any specific treatment plan(s) in dispute. Adjudicator Watt stated that a MIG designation did not constitute a guarantee or refusal for payment of a treatment plan. Rather, the MIG permitted a claimant to apply for benefits within its prescribed limits. Adjudicator Watt noted that the LAT could only determine the applicability of the MIG in conjunction with the reasonableness and necessity of a disputed benefit. The claimant’s application was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.
