The Tribunal found that the Applicant sustained a minor injury and was subject to treatment within the MIG. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to the OCF-18s in dispute or interest.
Adjudicator Rebecca Hines declined to address the procedural issue raised regarding the new records from Body Dynamics served within the Applicant’s written submissions, given that the “evidence had no bearing on the outcome” of the decision.
The Adjudicator found that the Applicant has not met his onus that he suffers from chronic pain as a result of the accident. Firstly, the evidence the Applicant relied upon was insufficient to support that he suffers from chronic pain as a result of the accident. The Tribunal found that the CNRS from his treating clinic was illegible and made no reference to any functional limitations as a result of ongoing pain. Secondly, the Applicant relied on the decision of T.S. v Aviva, 2018 CanLII 83520 (ON LAT) in support of his position that he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain. The Adjudicator found that the decision did not support his position as pain complaints must be more than sequelae of soft tissue injuries and must have an adverse impact on an individual’s wellbeing and functionally disabling.
Adjudicator found that the Applicant was not entitled to OCF-18s in dispute because it sought treatment outside the MIG. No interest was owing because no benefits were overdue. The Application was dismissed.
LinkedIn