The claimant disputed entitlement to various medical benefits. The insurer argued that the dispute was barred due to the claimant’s IE non-attendance. Adjudicator Chakravarti held that the dispute could proceed because the IE notice was not in accordance with section 44. The denial of benefits was generic and did not explain why benefits outside the MIG were not being approved. The notice simply stated that the MIG applied, without reasons why the insurer believed the MIG applied. The IE notice contained the same deficient language, and made no mention of the injuries or medical reasons for the IE.
