Contact Us

  MIG Update – August 10, 2026

25% Award for Denying Psych Assessment Without Functional Limitation 

This week, we review a MIG psych case, where the Tribunal was asked to consider whether an Applicant must demonstrate a distinct “functional limitation” alongside psychological symptoms to warrant removal from the MIG and justify a psychological assessment. The Tribunal considered several factors in determining an award of 25%.

Virtual Training – Upcoming Sessions

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2026 upcoming Virtual Training sessions!

• SABS Expedited – September 28- October 2, 2026

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

Course details & register here +

Factor – Psych 25% Award

In Mckenzie v. Security National Insurance Company (24-014010) Yolanda McKenzie sought entitlement to a $2,200 psychological assessment treatment plan following a March 15, 2023 accident and removal from the MIG due to accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Applicant’s Position

McKenzie argued as early as June 2023, a pre-screen with psychologist Dr. Brunshaw documented sleep disturbances, irritability, frustration, and depression, symptoms she had never experienced prior to the accident. CNRs from her family physician, Dr. Cherepacha, tracked this ongoing decline, showing escalating medical intervention through prescriptions for Trazodone in October 2023 and Cipralex in April 2024.

The psychological toll culminated in an April 2024 panic attack behind the wheel, leaving her entirely unable to drive since. McKenzie maintained that funding the June 2023 psychological assessment was reasonable and necessary to establish her current baseline and support her recovery. By not acting on the consistent documentation of her insomnia, depression, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Security National unreasonably withheld benefits, delayed essential treatment, and failed in its duty to support her maximal medical recovery.

The Respondent’s Position

Mckenzie’s psychological issues did not involve a functional impairment. It argued that her first complaint of psychological issues occurred over a year after the accident and that no psychological assessment was required. It maintained that its conduct did not justify a special award. It further argued that a psychological impairment must have a “functional limitation” to warrant removal from the MIG or warrant an assessment.

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 found:

• • There is no legal requirement under the Schedule for an Applicant to have a functional limitation with a psychological impairment.
  • Dr. Brunshaw and her family physician Dr. Cherepacha both confirmed her psychological impairments, as their records clearly indicated that she was prescribed medication to treat her psychological impairments. She was not taking any prescription medication before the accident.
  • Mackenzie’s chronic pain, sleep disruptions, and psychological symptoms were directly tied to the accident, removing her from the MIG and granting the $2,200 treatment plan for a psychological assessment.
    
  • “I agree with the applicant that a special award is payable. The respondent had an obligation to properly adjust the applicant’s claim. The insurer carries blameworthiness in this case. The applicant has provided substantial evidence of psychological impairments with medical documentation provided by her family physician and psychologist. The applicant was taking prescription medication to deal with her psychological issues as a result of the motor vehicle accident. The applicant was in a vulnerable position and the insurer had a responsibility to adjust this claim in a responsible manner. By delaying examination of other possible psychological issues, there was harm or potential harm for the applicant by the insurer. There is a strong need to for deterrence of such conduct by an insurer and the advantage wrongfully gained by the insurer from the misconduct. The insurer’s conduct was inflexible, imprudent and unyielding in denying the psychological assessment. For the above sufficient reasons, I am awarding the applicant a special award of 25% of the treatment plan.”

  ---

  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.

  ---