MIG Update – November 25, 2024
Pre-Screen Not Psychological Diagnosis
This week, a MIG hold case where the Tribunal considered whether a psychological pre-screen was sufficient evidence of a psychological impairment to remove the Applicant from the MIG.
Virtual Training – New – Upcoming Sessions!
Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2024 Fall Virtual Training session!
- BI Fundamentals: January 20th – 24th, 2024
- SABS Expedited: February 10th – 14th, 2024
*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion
Course details & register here +
Factor: Pre-Screen Not Psychological Diagnosis
In Sriskantharajah v. Co-operators General Insurance Company (22-011936) Padmavathi Sriskantharajah was involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 29, 2021 and sought entitlement to seven Treatment Plans that included chiropractic services, OT services, psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment. She argued that she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairments, chronic pain, and exacerbated pre-existing pain and tension headaches.
Sriskantharajah submitted a pre-screening psychological interview conducted by Dr. Bita Sharifzadeh on September 13, 2021 concluded that she was suffering from driving anxiety and emotional problems as a result of the accident. She relied on the CNR’s by her family doctor Dr. Manjula Jeyaspargan for her claims of chronic pain and pre-existing conditions.
Co-operators argued that the pre-screening psychological interview dated September 2021 was actually completed by psychotherapist Dr. Clark, and psychologist Dr. Sharifzadeh only provided ‘additional comments’ as part of the OCF-18. Further, it pointed out that Sriskantharajah reported to Ms. Clark that she regained sound sleep and only had mild pain as a result of the accident, even though he experienced some driving anxiety. Further, Ms. Clark’s comments were completely uncorroborated in the medical record, including the CNRs of her family doctor.
The Tribunal found:
-
- “I am not persuaded by the applicant’s submissions or limited evidence. I find that the applicant has not been diagnosed with any psychological conditions as a result of the accident. I do not place any weight on Ms. Clark’s comments because there is no formal report and there is no corroborating evidence of any psychological sequelae, particularly from the applicant’s family physician. The applicant also continues to drive when needed and reports that she sleeps well”.
- No evidence of a chronic pain diagnosis as a result of the accident, nor did she meet the criteria for chronic pain as set out by the AMA Guides. The CNRs indicated that she visited her family doctor and chiropractor infrequently, she was the caregiver for her elderly father-in-law, she has been working since September 2021, and she did the cooking and cleaning at home.
- While there was documented evidence by a health practitioner of a pre-existing medical condition as evidenced in Dr. Jeyasparagan records of low back pain in 2018, swollen hands/feet and pain in the heels in 2019, and on March 14, 2021, just a few months before the accident, he documented a muscle strain in the neck/shoulder and tension headaches. However, there was no evidence that these conditions would prevent recovery if held to the MIG.
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?