MIG Update – December 19, 2022
No Jurisdiction to Hear MIG as Standalone Issue
This week, the Tribunal deals with a jurisdictional issue with respect to the MIG as a standalone issue. The analysis by the Tribunal here is instructive and clarifies this question – when a case is brought before this Tribunal where the applicability of the MIG is in dispute, it is to be heard in conjunction with a denied medical benefit.
OARs provide 3 LAT Decisions each for and against for your fact situation, to inFORM your position, compare your evidence and assess your risk.
Factor: MIG Not a Standalone Issue for Tribunal
In McKay v. Travelers Insurance (20-008456), Patricia McKay, injured in an accident on March 22, 2013 sought a determination that her injuries were not predominantly minor and therefore not subject to the treatment within the MIG limit of $3500.
The Tribunal held:
- That it “does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issue of the MIG as a standalone issue unless a medical or rehabilitation benefit is tied to it pursuant to sections 15 or 16 of the Schedule”.
- The plain reading, context, and purpose of the Insurance Act. Section 280(1) of the Insurance Act states that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve “disputes in respect of an insured person’s entitlement of statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which an insured is entitled.”
- The MIG in and of itself does not entitle one to a benefit or grant them an amount of a benefit.
- A MIG classification is not considered a refusal to pay the amount claimed nor does it entitle an insured person to any amount of benefits. Which tier of benefit can be argued at any time however there must be a substantive benefit that relies upon its determination.
- If there are treatment and assessment plans to bring before the Tribunal, the applicant can submit a new application which lists them as issues in dispute”. Then, the applicability of the MIG will be an issue for the hearing adjudicator to assess in conjunction with the treatment plans in dispute.
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?
inHEALTH Keeps you LAT inFORMED With Access To:
1. LAT Compendium Database – a relational database of LAT and Divisional Court Decisions equipped with multiple search options, Smart Filters, and concise case summaries
2. Notifications: – weekly LAT inFORMER delivered to your inbox Wednesdays; Newly Added Decisions on Fridays and Breaking News as and when it happens
3. Research Support: – inHEALTH’s Live Chat Experts for guided searches and technical inquiries.
Sign up for a 14 day free trial below to experience the service and see how it can help guide your decision making.