Print

 

  MIG Update – March 4, 2024



Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

This week, a MIG hold case where the Applicant’s medical evidence and experts rendering the diagnoses were put to the test. The Tribunal considered their relevant expertise and supporting findings in coming to its conclusions.



Factor: Medical Evidence

In Vigliotti v. Echelon Insurance Company (22-000150), Roman Vigliotti was involved in a motor vehicle accident on January 16, 2021 and sought entitlement to two Treatment Plans for psychological and physiotherapy services. He claimed that he should be removed from the MIG due to a concussion, chronic pain, pre existing psychological condition and driver’s anxiety.

Vigliotti relied on the OCF-3 by chiropractor Dr. Matheson dated February 3, 2021, which indicated a diagnosis of concussion; the CNRs of family physician Dr. Lo, to support his claim that he was diagnosed with chronic pain. Further, he meets at least three of the six AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, including excessive reliance on support from family and friends for housekeeping responsibilities, withdrawal and lack of engagement in pre-accident hobbies, and an inability to drive due to fear. He advanced evidence of entering an opioid rehabilitation program in October 2021 to address his drug dependency.

Echelon submitted that Vigliotti did not sustain a concussion as a result of the accident as there was no report of hitting his head or any body part as recorded in the adjuster’s log notes dated January 21, 2021. There was also no compelling evidence of a chronic pain diagnosis. It further relied on the IE report of psychologist, Dr. Direnfeld, in support of its position Vigliotti did not have a psychological diagnosis relating to the subject accident.




The Tribunal found:

    • Insufficient evidence to support Vigliotti’s claim that he suffered a concussion as a result of the subject accident.
    • As only three types of practitioners are regulated in Ontario to make a diagnosis of concussion: a physician, nurse practitioner, or neuropsychologist little weight was given to the chiropractor, Dr. Matheson’s diagnosis of concussion as he is not qualified to make such diagnosis.
    • Dr. Matheson’s notes did not offer any rationale for the diagnosis, nor need for additional tests or examination. Further there is no record of Vigliotti being advised to follow a post-concussion protocol, and no referrals are noted.
    • Vigliotti first reported the mva to his family doctor 5 days post-accident with complaints of pain in his neck, headache, and tenderness in his upper back the day following the accident. The records reflect he was diagnosed as suffering a sprained neck. The GP’s records do not mention nor support a diagnosis of concussion.
    • On the issue of chronic pain, there was only one reference in the GP’s notes 10 months after the accident where Vigliotti complained of ongoing neck, back and right shoulder pain. The GP’s records were insufficient to support a finding of chronic pain. There was no referral to a chronic pain specialist and Vigliotti did not lead evidence that the GP had the credentials to make such a diagnosis.
    • There wasn’t a causal link between his drug addiction and the mva. The intake records of Recovery Care’s dated October 21, 2021, indicate an eight-year history of cocaine with no reference to the subject accident and any dependency on drugs Virgillio may have acquired.
    • Dr. Direnfeld’s IE opinion is persuasive in that there was insufficient evidence of any accident-related functional impairment from a psychological perspective.


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?

 

Archive of LAT Updates

June 4, 2025: MIG Escape Justifies CAT Assessments

CAT, MIG

June 2, 2025: Late Onset (Two Years) Shoulder Pain Remains in MIG

MIG

May 28, 2025: CRA Records not Necessarily Determinative Absent Corroborating Documentation

IRB

May 26, 2025: Insomnia a Pre-Existing Condition

MIG

May 16, 2025: First Year of Self Employment Results in $Nil IRB Despite Demonstrated Earnings

IRB

May 12, 2025: Res Judicata Not Waived For New MIG Hearing

MIG

April 30, 2025: Tribunal Confirms Four Class 4 Marked Impairments

CAT

April 28, 2025: MIG Not Conceded Despite Approved CAT Assessments

MIG

April 23, 2025: Court Reverses Tribunal’s Unreasonable Adjournment Refusal

Adjournment, CAT, Divisional Court

April 21, 2025: MIG Escape on Fractured Tooth 15 Months Later

MIG

April 16, 2025: Deficient Notice Renders NEB Payable

NEB

April 14, 2025: MIG Valid Medical Reason

MIG

April 9, 2025: Bus Travelling Over Elevated Manhole Cover Satisfies “Collision”

Definition Accident

April 7, 2025: Four OCF 18’s Payable Despite MIG Hold

MIG

March 26, 2025: Post 104 IRB Ongoing for Non-CAT

CAT, IRB

March 24, 2025: 30% Award for Failure to Review CNRs Overturned on Reconsideration

MIG

March 19, 2025: Yes to CAT, No to Post 104 IRB

CAT, IRB

March 17, 2025: Imaging Report Alone Insufficient to Establish Causation

MIG

March 12, 2025: Tribunal Rules Again on Matter Referred Back by the Court

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

March 10, 2025: Res Judicata Waived on New Evidence

MIG

March 5, 2025: No Criterion 8 CAT as Physical Pain the Limiting Factor

CAT

March 3, 2025: Cause of Shoulder Tear Degenerative or MVA Related?

MIG

February 26, 2025: NEB Payable to 104 Week Mark Due to Technical Breaches

NEB

February 24, 2025: Doctor Not Required to Provide Diagnosis

MIG

February 19, 2025: Court Sets Aside Tribunal S.32 Notice Decision

Breaking News, Div Court, Limitation Period

February 12, 2025: Post 104 IRB Despite Employment & No CAT As Only Two Marked Impairments

CAT, IRB

February 10, 2025: GP Evidence Preferred over IE Regarding Concussion

MIG

February 5, 2025: No Election Required Despite Endorsement of IRB & NEB

Procedure, SABS

January 27, 2025: CNR’s + Imaging Determinative of Complete Shoulder Tear

MIG

January 22, 2025: Court of Appeal Upholds Divisional Court Decision

Divisional Court, NEB, Reconsideration

January 20, 2025: GP’s Diagnosis of “Head Injury” Prevails

MIG

January 15, 2025: Tribunal Accepts Neither Expert in Awarding Pre But Not Post 104 IRB

IRB

January 13, 2025: A Brain Contusion is Not Enough for a Concussion Diagnosis

MIG

January 9, 2025: Court Awards $69K in Costs for Apparent Miscarriage of Justice

Divisional Court,Costs

January 6, 2025: Corroborative Evidence Not Necessarily Required in Psych Diagnoses

MIG

December 18, 2024: Applicant Successful in CAT Case Where Respondent’s Expert Unavailable

CAT

December 16, 2024: Applicants Lose on Flawed Interpretation of the Schedule

MIG

December 11, 2024: Court Sends Paraplegic Matter Back to Tribunal re “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court, Reconsiderations

December 9, 2024: Pre-Existing Conditions MIG Escapes?

MIG

December 4, 2024: Court Remits $770K Award Worthy Matter Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

December 2, 2024: GP Questionnaire Does Not Trigger MIG Escape on Pre Existing

MIG

November 27, 2024: Court Remits $200K Award Worthy Matters Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

November 25, 2024: Pre-Screen Not Psychological Diagnosis

MIG

November 20, 2024: IE Not Reasonable or Necessary – No to CAT & IRB

CAT, IRB, Procedure

November 18, 2024: No Evidence Pre-Existing Conditions Prevent MMR

MIG

November 13, 2024: Applicant’s Explanation for Delayed Application Found Reasonable

Procedure

November 11, 2024: GP Concussion Diagnosis Accepted as Legitimate

MIG

November 6, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT

November 4, 2024: Submissions Do Not = Evidence

MIG