Contact Us

  MIG Update – September 28, 2026

Lack of Medical Review Undermines Expert Reports  

In this week’s edition, the Tribunal considered the conflicting opinions where a lack of foundational medical review left both psychological assessors relying primarily on self-reporting and psychometric testing. Neither expert had reviewed the Applicant’s treating medical history prior to forming their opinions. To resolve the impasse, the Tribunal reviewed the broader records of the family doctor and treating clinic demonstrating how contemporaneous treating records can overcome a reliance on self-reporting and ultimately validate or undermine an expert’s conclusion regardless of which party retained them.

Virtual Training – Upcoming Sessions

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

• SABS Expedited – To Be Announced

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

Course details & register here +

Factor – Medical Records Review

In Glaubach v Definity Insurance Company (25-004771) Tatyana Glaubach was involved in an accident on December 29, 2022, and sought entitlement to seven Treatment Plans totalling $13,991.70 for psychological, translation, physiotherapy, and massage services, and a chronic pain assessment. She sought to be removed from the MIG based on chronic pain and a psychological impairment.

The Applicant’s Position

Glaubach submits that she should be removed from the MIG as a result of chronic pain and psychological impairment. She relied on the August 2023 psychologist Dr. Jacqueline Brunshaw, to support that she suffers from Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, and Features of Specific Phobia, Situational Type (Vehicular driver).

The Respondent’s Position

Definity relied on the February 2024 report of psychologist Dr. Rod Day, who opined that Glaubach had no psychological impairments as a result of the accident that would remove her from the MIG. Definity submitted that the lack of objective corroborating records supported Dr. Day’s conclusions.

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:

• • Both expert opinions were based on very limited medical documentation, relying primarily on a few claim forms, vehicle damage photos, or the other assessor’s initial report leaving both opinions heavily dependent on Glaubach’s self-reporting and psychometric testing
    
  • Dr. Day (Section 44) only looked at Dr. Brunshaw’s report, a few OCF-18s, the OCF-1, and vehicle photos/estimates.
    
  • Dr. Brunshaw (Section 25) only looked at a single OCF-18 from January 26, 2023.
    
  • Neither doctor reviewed the CNRs of family physician Dr. Salehi (which documented post-accident psychological complaints, therapy recommendations, and a psychotropic prescription) nor the treating physiotherapist/counselling CNRs (which documented ongoing driving anxiety and emotional distress).
    
  • By measuring both reports against this independent, contemporaneous treatment history, it preferred Dr. Brunshaw’s diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, with Features of Specific Phobia (Vehicular driver) determining that Glaubach established on a balance of probabilities an accident-related psychological impairment warranting MIG removal.
    

  ---

  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.

  ---