An Ontario claimant's bid to escape the Minor Injury Guideline fell apart when his own testimony contradicted his experts.
In a decision released April 10, 2026, the Licence Appeal Tribunal sided with Definity Insurance Company, holding that Leonardo Anthony Riccardo Coriglione's injuries from a May 2023 car accident were predominantly minor - and that his evidence was marked by significant inconsistencies.
Coriglione filed his application on August 6, 2025, seeking to overturn Definity's decision to cap his medical and rehabilitation benefits at $3,500 under the Minor Injury Guideline. He claimed chronic pain, psychological injuries, non-earner benefits, multiple treatment plans, a special award, and interest. Adjudicator Steve Gilchrist denied all of it.
The case turned less on the law and more on credibility. Coriglione testified that he suffered chronic pain in his neck, shoulders, upper and lower back, and left leg, along with headaches and sleep problems - all stemming from the accident. But the evidence painted a different picture.
He visited his family doctor just once after the accident, nearly two years later, and was assessed with left shoulder and neck strain - injuries that fall squarely within the Schedule's definition of "minor injury." Imaging showed a partial thickness intrasubstance supraspinatus tear, which the respondent's examiner, Dr. Seung-Jun Lee, testified is specifically considered a minor injury. Dr. Lee also found that Coriglione met none of the six criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides - a diagnosis that requires meeting at least three.
The applicant submitted a chronic pain report from Dr. Grigory Karmy but never called him to testify. The Tribunal gave the report reduced weight. That same report noted "pre-existing upper back pain" and worsening sleep disturbances - contradicting Coriglione's claim that he had no health issues before the accident.
Records from the methadone clinic where Coriglione attended weekly visits over five years added further complications. He testified that he avoided doctors because "doctors only want to prescribe pills." Yet those same records showed he obtained 19 prescriptions for 10 different medications. He said he had no sleep issues before the crash, but trazodone - a sleep medication - was first prescribed three years earlier. When asked why he continued filling prescriptions he claimed did not work, he told the Tribunal he "takes them to make the pharmacist money."
The psychological claim fared no better. Dr. Konstantinos Papazoglou had diagnosed adjustment disorder and driving phobia after a virtual assessment. But under cross-examination, Coriglione rejected those findings outright: "I don't have psychological issues or I couldn't manage a $20 million work site." The Tribunal took that as compelling evidence that, from the applicant's own perspective, no psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.
Coriglione's non-earner benefit claim also fell short. He said he took 13 months off work, but methadone clinic records showed he reported being engaged in work on at least five occasions during that period.
One treatment plan was barred outright. The Tribunal found it was filed outside the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule, and that Definity's denial letter met the standard set out in Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 30 - clear, direct, and sufficient to trigger the clock.
For insurers, the takeaway is straightforward: clinical records from all treating facilities, not just those tied to the claim, remain one of the most effective tools in MIG disputes.
