Contact Us

  MIG Update – July 7, 2025

Contrasting Chronic Pain Rulings & Compliance Issues

This week’s decision offers a valuable counterpoint to last week’s MIG escape case. In contrast, this week’s case upheld the MIG position, providing instructive insight into how the Tribunal assesses chronic pain claims and supporting evidence.

The Tribunal also considered whether the Applicant’s failure to attend IE’s would bar them from disputing their claims, clarifying the procedural requirements and Applicant’s obligations for attending IE’s. This discussion is particularly instructive for similar procedural challenges.

Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the conduct of multiple withdrawal of applications on the same issues rose to the level of abuse of process or warranted cost consequences, shedding light on how repeated or duplicative filings are viewed under the LAT’s cost framework.

With 1900+ MIG decisions determined by the LAT so far… we provide research support that gives you answers.

Virtual Training – *NEW* Upcoming Fall Sessions

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2025 upcoming Virtual Training sessions! Buy one seat and get one seat 50% OFF on all courses until August 31st, 2025!

• SABS Expedited: October 6-10, 2025
• BI Fundamentals: December 1-5, 2025

*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion

Course details & register here +

In Farquharson v. Intact Insurance Company (23-001291), Starie Farquharson was involved in an accident on November 26, 2019, and sought entitlement to three Treatment Plans for physiotherapy, aquatic therapy, and a psychological assessment and to OCF-6s for massage therapy. She submitted that she should be removed from the MIG based on chronic pain and a psychological impairment.

Intact relied on psychologist Dr. Syed’s July 2021 IE report finding no evidence of psychological injury, and on Dr. Khaled’s April and July 2021 IE reports, which concluded that she sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries, with no evidence of overt organic pathology or disability attributable to the accident, and that symptomatic relief could be achieved through independent self-directed exercise.

In addition, at issue Intact’s claim for $1,000.00 in costs, asserting that Farquharson abused the Tribunal process by applying to the Tribunal twice and, on both occasions, withdrew the application on the date that submissions were due.

Farquharson in reply submitted that no costs should be awarded because the current application was different than prior applications, and that her prior withdrawals related to hearings with no witnesses involved, and that an order for costs when new issues were being litigated would be procedurally unfair.

Get Your Stats Report!

inHEALTH’s Statistical Reports provide insights and analysis on the outcomes of Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) and court decisions.

Customize success rate reports on any variable relating to disputed AB claims captured in LAT and court decisions!

Decisions By Top 10 Insurers

*Sample Chart

Statistical Report fees are based on the complexity of your data request

Learn More & Get a Quote Here >

The Tribunal held:

Preliminary Issue – Breach of s55(1)2 – Failure to Attend IE’s

• Farquharson failed to attend IEs related to the reassessment of whether she sustained a minor injury and of two Treatment Plans arguing she had already attended earlier IE’s.
• Attending earlier IEs did not exempt Farquharson from attending later ones. The restriction is “not more often than is reasonably necessary” under s.44(1), and;
• The IE’s were scheduled two years after the initial set, fulfilling Intact’s ongoing duty to continuously adjust the claim .
• In exercising its discretion under s.55(2) to permit the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal held that it would be procedurally unfair to bar Farquharson from doing so as Intact did not notify her of the preliminary issue, and it was not listed in the CCRO. The email between counsel asking what Farqushon’s position on attendance at IEs was insufficient notice, as it did not indicate that Intact would raise her non-attendance as a bar for proceeding with the application.

MIG

• Farquharson did not have chronic pain with functional impairment. Little weight was afforded to Farquharson’s self-reported complaints due to surveillance evidence, which showed her engaging in significant physical activity on social media, such as pushing a weighted sled and performing pullups, in clear contradiction to the functionality she reported to various healthcare providers.
• Preference was given to Dr. Khaled’s April and July 2021 IE reports, which concluded that Farquharson sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.
• Dr. Khaled’s opinion was consistent with the CNRs of family physician Dr. Zarinehbaf, who diagnosed her with myofascial pain, mechanical low back pain, and chronic pain syndrome, but made no changes to her care, medication, or therapy, instead discussing stretching at home.
  
• While Farquharson had complained of pain and received trigger point injections without reported relief, this did not result in impairment, as she resumed employment as a personal trainer and remained completely independent with all her self-care tasks and activities of daily living.
• Farquharson did not have a psychological impairment and preferred Dr. Syed’s July 2021 IE report, which, based on psychometric testing and document review, found no objective evidence of a psychological injury, and noted that Farquharson test scores suggested malingering and an inclination to over-report and amplify symptoms. While the CNRs indicated that she complained of anxiety, sleep loss, and flashbacks, on three occasions, this did not result in further intervention.

Costs As Multiple Applications on Same Issue

• Intact was not entitled to $1,000.00 in costs as it was reasonable for Farquharson to withdraw an application if they were unprepared to put their best foot forward at a hearing.
• The timing of Farquharson’s withdrawals, prior to making written submissions and tendering evidence, was reasonable, as it did not require Intact to issue submissions or tender evidence.

Need a briefing on recent MIG trends or a case law training session for your team? We can help.

Contact us today or reach out on live chat to set up a tailored session or request a stat report and summary of recent MIG rulings.

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 33% 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. Get an OAR!