The claimant commenced two applications for treatment and assessment plans. The first application dealt with certain disputed treatment and assessment plans, and the Insurer’s determination that the claimant sustained a minor injury. The second application concerned the claimant’s chronic pain treatment plan. A motion decision ordered that the decision rendered in the first application regarding the MIG would apply to the second application. In the first application, the Tribunal held that the claimant fell within the MIG. For the second application, the claimant argued that she was entitled to the treatment plan because the insurer failed to respond in accordance with s. 38 of the SABS, and that the treatment was reasonable and necessary. The insurer argued that the Tribunal had already held the Plaintiff was subject to the MIG, the claimant’s fresh evidence did not impeach the original decision, and thus not entitled to the chronic pain treatment plan. Adjudicator Norris agreed with the Insurer, and held that the claimant was not entitled to the disputed chronic pain treatment plan as her injuries fell within the MIG.
