Personal Injury Blog

ACCIDENT BENEFITS UPDATE: INSURER CAN’T RELY ON PRIOR MIG REPORT

In Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Canada (2018 CanLII 110921), a recent Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision, the applicant was struck by another car while making a left hand turn on June 30, 2016.  Within two days of the accident, he reported back and left leg pain and began receiving physiotherapy. His employer provided accommodation for his injuries that allowed him to continue working.  He received accident benefits coverage from his insurer, Aviva subject to the $3500 cap under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG). Subsequent treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic and massage were denied and the applicant commenced a LAT proceeding to challenge the MIG designation and seek payment of the disputed plans.

Goals of the disputed treatment included: pain reduction. chronic pain prevention and functional restoration.  Aviva denied the plan based on the opinion of Dr. Auguste, an Orthopedic Surgeon, who felt that the MIG applied to the applicant’s injuries and there was no evidence that suggested he should be treated outside of its limits.  

After the denial, the applicant was notified that he had been removed from the MIG for psychological impairments, based on a report by Dr. Pilowsky (partially funded by Aviva).

At the hearing, Aviva argued that although the applicant was no longer in the MIG, his physical impairments were still minor.  As a result, the denial of ongoing physical therapy was justified. It claimed that the status of the applicant’s physical injuries was not a factor in its decision to remove him from the MIG.

Adjudicator Go highlighted the contradiction inherent in Aviva’s position.  Denial of the disputed treatment plans was based solely on Dr. Auguste’s report. However, by March 2017, Aviva had already acknowledged that the applicant’s injuries were not covered under the MIG.  Aviva no longer accepted its expert’s opinion regarding the MIG yet continued to rely upon it for purposes of this dispute.

Adjudicator Go observed that merely stating an applicant is non-MIG for "psychological reasons" does not give an insurer the right to ignore his ongoing physical complaints.  In fact, psychological well-being is intertwined with the speed and quality of physical recovery. As a result of these considerations, she held in favour of the applicant, and approved the treatment.

If you have been seriously injured in a car accident, and have questions about this decision, the Minor Injury Guideline or your accident benefits generally, please contact us for a free consultation.  At Campisi LLP, we run our practice "Clients First, Excellence Always".  Put us to work for you.

In Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Canada (2018 CanLII 110921), a recent Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision, the applicant was struck by another car while making a left hand turn on June 30, 2016.  Within two days of the accident, he reported back and left leg pain and began receiving physiotherapy. His employer provided accommodation for his injuries that allowed him to continue working.  He received accident benefits coverage from his insurer, Aviva subject to the $3500 cap under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG). Subsequent treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic and massage were denied and the applicant commenced a LAT proceeding to challenge the MIG designation and seek payment of the disputed plans.

Goals of the disputed treatment included: pain reduction. chronic pain prevention and functional restoration.  Aviva denied the plan based on the opinion of Dr. Auguste, an Orthopedic Surgeon, who felt that the MIG applied to the applicant’s injuries and there was no evidence that suggested he should be treated outside of its limits.  

After the denial, the applicant was notified that he had been removed from the MIG for psychological impairments, based on a report by Dr. Pilowsky (partially funded by Aviva).

At the hearing, Aviva argued that although the applicant was no longer in the MIG, his physical impairments were still minor.  As a result, the denial of ongoing physical therapy was justified. It claimed that the status of the applicant’s physical injuries was not a factor in its decision to remove him from the MIG.

Adjudicator Go highlighted the contradiction inherent in Aviva’s position.  Denial of the disputed treatment plans was based solely on Dr. Auguste’s report. However, by March 2017, Aviva had already acknowledged that the applicant’s injuries were not covered under the MIG.  Aviva no longer accepted its expert’s opinion regarding the MIG yet continued to rely upon it for purposes of this dispute.

Adjudicator Go observed that merely stating an applicant is non-MIG for "psychological reasons" does not give an insurer the right to ignore his ongoing physical complaints.  In fact, psychological well-being is intertwined with the speed and quality of physical recovery. As a result of these considerations, she held in favour of the applicant, and approved the treatment.

If you have been seriously injured in a car accident, and have questions about this decision, the Minor Injury Guideline or your accident benefits generally, please contact us for a free consultation.  At Campisi LLP, we run our practice "Clients First, Excellence Always".  Put us to work for you.

Campisi Law
About Campisi Law
Campisi's personal injury lawyers specialize in injuries resulting from serious vehicle accidents and catastrophic brain and spinal cord injuries. We know that when you’re a victim of an accident, everything can seem upside down. You need someone who cares enough to help you through the process, but also someone who’s strong enough to battle tirelessly on your behalf. You need an advocate with a heart. We help people across Ontario receive the compensation they deserve, and you don't need to pay anything unless we win. Contact us now for a no-obligation consultation.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get free insights delivered right to your inbox

 

Give us your email address and we’ll send you the latest information on updates to the legal and insurance system and learn how you can make the best recovery possible.

image 13 (1)

New Car? Here’s Why You Should Consider OPCF 43

Buying or Leasing a New Car? OPCF 43 Insurance Could Save You Money.

Distracted Driving Penalties as of 2022

Ontario police are cracking down harder than ever on distracted driving in 2022, and penalties are getting steeper. And with good reason; deaths from distracted driving have doubled since the year 2000, and one person is injured at the rate of every half hour, according to Ontario.ca. Read on to...

DUI: Stats, Ontario Law, and Impacts of Charges

Impaired driving, also called driving under the influence or DUI, refers to the operation of a vehicle while the driver’s ability to do so is compromised by alcohol, prescription or non-prescription drugs, alone or in any combination. Types of vehicles where DUI charges could apply include not only...

More Posts