MIG Update – August 23, 2021
Family Doctor Records Not Determinative
What specific elements must be present to consider whether or not your MIG case will succeed on chronic pain? This week we review a case where consideration was given to a series of ongoing complaints in finding that the Applicant met their burden of proof to escape the MIG.
Instantly determine the possible outcomes of your case with an Outcome Analysis Report (OAR) – Request an OAR through live chat!
Factor: Family Doctor Records Not Determinative
In Hagley v Intact (20-001294), an October 2016 loss, Hagley submitted that she suffers from ongoing low back, hip and shoulder pain that is well-documented in her medical file. The Respondent contended that Hagley did not attend at her family doctor’s office until five months post-accident and that there are significant gaps in her medical records between January 2018 and March 2020. It further asserted that her complaints of lower back and right thigh pain did not begin until March 2020 and there is no indication that the accident caused this pain 3.5 years later.
‘MIG escape’ – The Tribunal’s findings:
- AMA Guides are an assistive tool for evaluating chronic pain claims where there is no formal diagnosis
- While a diagnosis is not strictly required, Hagley was diagnosed with chronic pain by his family doctor and treating chronic pain specialist
- Contrary to the Respondent’s position regarding the gaps in medical records, the Tribunal found significant number of treatment notes evidencing the fact that Hagley has been under the regular care of the chronic pain specialist since July 2019
- Hagley regularly received nerve block injections, joint injections and trigger point injections as well as being prescribed pain medications
- Consistent complaints of pain, primarily in lower back, in the four years post-accident
Related MIG Monday Issue:
AMA Guides – To Use or Not to Use?
If you Have Read This Far…
Our MIG Monday series discusses the multitude of factors to consider when evaluating a risk position on MIG cases. The Tribunal has ruled on the MIG in 24% of the decisions so far. Each case is nuanced, but with similar factors.
Inform your position & present persuasive arguments. Include an Outcome Analysis Report (OAR) in your case evaluation complete with For/Against cases. Need an OAR?