The claimant disputed the insurer’s decision to keep him in the MIG, as well as his entitlement to various treatment plans. Prior to the filing of hearing submissions, the insurer removed the claimant from the MIG and approved all of the disputed treatment plans. As a result, the only issue in dispute in the hearing was a special award. Vice Chair Boyce declined to grant a special award, finding that this was not a situation where the insurer stubbornly maintain a wrong conclusion. Rather, the insurer demonstrated flexibility and good faith to the claimant in revising its conclusion on receipt of productions that provided a clearer picture of the claimant’s impairments. Notably, Vice Chair Boyce found that much of the blame for delay in the adjusting of the claim could be laid at the claimant’s feet, given that the majority of the medical records were not submitted to the insurer until the production deadline for the written hearing.
