MIG Update – March 22, 2021

Adjustment Disorder & Driving Phobia

In this week’s edition we discuss two cases involving a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder and Driving Phobia. In each case the consistency of complaint was the determining factor in the Tribunal’s decision.

Factor: Consistency & Credibility

In Jeevakumaran v Unifund (20-001025), the Tribunal gave significant weight to Jeevakumaran’s consistent self-reporting of his severity of his psychological complaints which addressed the Respondent’s validity concerns.

Jeevakumaran sought removal from the MIG on the basis of psychological diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and driving phobia. The Respondent relied on a psychological IE which raised validity issues.

‘MIG escape’ – The Tribunal held:

• Significant weight was given to Jeevakumaran’s consistent self-reporting outside of formal psychological assessment
  
• Clear similarity in symptoms and test result found in the s.25 and s.44 reports
  
• Notwithstanding the removal from the MIG, the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that Jeevakumaran should avail himself of OHIP funded psychological treatment
  

In Sidhu v TD Insurance (19-009840), the Tribunal found that Sidhu’s complaints of psychological impairments were inconsistent and preferred the opinion of the IE assessor which was more consistent with the evidence.

Sidhu sought removal from the MIG on the basis of psychological diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder and driving phobia. The Respondent relied on its psychological IE which determined that Sidhu did not sustain any accident-related psychological impairment.

‘MIG hold’ – The Tribunal held:

• Little weight was given to the s.25 finding as Sidhu’s credibility was undermined by her inconsistent reporting of psychological symptoms to her own assessors on the same day, and to her treating clinic
• The CNRs of the walk-in clinics and prescription summaries do not mention the accident
  

inHEALTH’s Outcome Analysis Report – Try it Free!

Whether assessing your risk, preparing for the LAT or interpreting the SABS, inHEALTH’s Outcome Analysis Report (OAR) will provide you with the competitive advantage for the best possible outcome.

inHEALTH’s OAR Report compares your fact situation to similar cases decided by the LAT. The OAR report includes 3 cases each For and Against with an outcome

Claim it Now!

1. Describe your fact situation over Live Chat
2. Mention “I need a paddle” to redeem your offer and receive your free OAR.
   

Offer expires March 31, 2021.