MIG Update – December 18, 2022
‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation
This week, a MIG hold case where the Tribunal considered whether viewing a video of the accident scene that caused a resurfacing of psychological trauma came under the definition of accident.
Training 25th Anniversary Special!
Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2024 Winter Virtual Training Sessions. In celebration of inHEALTH’s 25th year receive 25% off all courses until December 31, 2023.
- BI Fundamentals: January 29th – February 2nd, 2024
- SABS Expedited: February 26th – March 1st, 2024
*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion
Factor: Psychological Trauma
In Buma v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex (22-000947), Colleen Buma was involved in an automobile accident on September 11, 2021 claiming both physical and psychological injuries as a result. She sought entitlement to a psychological assessment and treatment outside of the MIG limits totalling in excess of $8,000.
Buma claimed that a video of the accident showed a house in the background where she had once lived and been abused; and that viewing the video triggered a resurfacing of psychological trauma that exacerbated existing psychological issues.
Both parties agree there was an accident as defined in the schedule and that Buma sustained physical injuries. However, TD raised a preliminary issue for a determination on whether the incident that caused Buma’s psychological injuries meet the definition of “accident” as defined in the Schedule.
The Tribunal held:
- As per Greenhalgh v ING, the “incident” or “the viewing of the video by the applicant” is not an action or normal activity that arises out of the use or operation of an automobile. Since the viewing of the video does not meet the definition of “accident”, Buma was not entitled to accident benefits related to her psychological impairments.
- Buma had not submitted evidence to show she has sustained physical injuries that are not predominately minor as such with the finding the psychological injuries were not caused by the accident there was no basis for removal from 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?
inHEALTH Keeps you LAT inFORMED With Access To:
1. LAT Compendium Database – a relational database of LAT and Divisional Court Decisions equipped with multiple search options, Smart Filters, and concise case summaries
2. Notifications: – weekly LAT inFORMER delivered to your inbox Wednesdays; Newly Added Decisions on Fridays and Breaking News as and when it happens
3. Research Support: – inHEALTH’s Live Chat Experts for guided searches and technical inquiries.
Sign up for a 14 day free trial below to experience the service and see how it can help guide your decision making.