Application of Ontario's Minor Injury Guideline is "crazy right now": AB lawyer

sqr

This is a confusing situation. Usually, there is little evidence of fracture until later in the treatment stage. If the lawyer is to be believed, then we should have clients wait till we have confirmation of a fracture. That is not in the best interest of the client and best practices suggest early intervention regardless of type of injury. In addition, insurers will not deem a client outside the MIG unless they have sufficient evidence. I agree with that. There are a lot of client being taken out of the MIG for ridiculous reasons especially by personal injury lawyers. This is entire inappropriate. Disclosure: I am a physiotherapist and not an insurance adjuster if you think my commmets were skewed in any one direction.

Posted March 7, 2012 04:34 PM

Jennifer

Since the MIG's implementation there has been an increase in the number of diagnosis citing fractures when in fact after detailed investigations the injuries turn out to be soft tissue in nature. In order to ensure the entitlements of the injured it is the insurers responsibility to request objective medical documents. The very same documents that allowed the original assessors to diagnose fractures and other injuries that place the client outside of the MIG. Rather than delay treatment an insurer should consider approving the standard MIG treatment until further determinations are made beacuse of the medicals. A legitimate non MIG injury supported with objective medicals or compelling evidence that is in question needs to be evaluated by a specialist and analysts need recognize they are not medical professionals. More responsibility and accountability needs to fall on the treating practioner or regulated health professional and they should be ensuring the documents they are submitting truly support the injuries being reported. Working together, keeping open communiation and sharing information is the key to the MIG's success and the fair treatment of those who injuries place them outside of this guideline.

Posted February 11, 2012 07:26 PM

harry

Unfortunately the MIG is being forced upon a lot of legitimate claimants who are seriously injured. The insurers have instructed their claims staff to put as many claimants into the MIG as they can and the rest will sort themselves out at a later date. A lot of claims staff are overworked, under pressure and do the most expedient thing, they follow instructions . The innocent claimants who have severe injuries are being punished. This gives the public the impression that the insurance industry is just out there collecting high premiums and then refusing to pay legitimate claims. Is it any wonder that the public does not get upset when the insurance industry screams that fraud is up. The public has the impression that the industry is just as crooked as those defrauding the industry. The solution to all this nonsense is to return to a pure tort system with no BI deductible. The claimant has to prove liability and damages.

Posted February 11, 2012 07:51 AM

ET

Which definition of "fracture(s)" was used by the court? Automobile physical fracture is not the same as a fracture to a human body. Note that "fracture" in medical terms could be a "bone fracture", a damage that is permanent in most cases and also a cause of human body physical difficiency. Is there any details or papers/documents that the general public can find to further learn about the court's decision and the definition of the terms listed or considered as a "Minor Injury"?

Posted February 10, 2012 12:53 PM