MIG Update – February 24, 2025
Doctor Not Required to Provide Diagnosis
This week, a MIG escape on the basis of psychological impairment. The Tribunal considered whether the Respondent’s IE failure to provide a diagnosis aligned with the test results and Applicant’s reported symptoms in concluding a diagnosis was not warranted. As well as the Respondent’s objections that the psych assessment was virtual and the Applicant’s psych diagnosis was not rendered by a doctor.
With 1700+ MIG decisions determined by the LAT so far… we provide research support that gives you answers.
Virtual Training – New Sessions Added!
Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2025 upcoming Virtual Training sessions!
- BI Fundamentals: March 31- April 4, 2025
- SABS Expedited: May 5-9, 2025
*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion
Course details & register here +
In Rampersad v. Jevco Insurance (22-012200), Ethan Rampersad was involved in an accident on November 10, 2020, and sought entitlement to NEBs from December 8, 2020, and ongoing, and to six Treatment Plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment totalling $12,027.35. He submitted he should be removed from the MIG based on a psychological impairment.
Rampersad relied on the March 2021 report by psychological associate Ms. Grinberg who diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder. He reported that he was hypervigilant and overly cautious in a vehicle, and excessively checked his surroundings, had a constant fear of being involved in another accident, found driving exhausting and disliked it. He also experienced anxiety as a passenger and would berate the driver and attempt to depress a non-existent brake pedal.
Jevco relied on the May 2021 report of psychologist Dr. Rakesh Ratti, who found that Rampersad presented with minimal to mild emotional/psychological distress that did not meet the DSM-5 criteria for a mental health diagnosis. Further taking issue with the fact that Ms. Grinberg’s assessment was virtual, she did not review a number of Rampersad’s CNRs prior to writing her report and that she was not a doctor or under a doctor’s supervision.
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:
-
- The March 2021 report of psychological associate Ms. Grinberg, took into account Rampersad’s report that he was hypervigilant and overly cautious in a vehicle, and excessively checked his surroundings, fear of being involved in another accident and anxiety as a passenger in rendering a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder: Unspecified,
- The psychologist Dr. Ratti did not explain in his May 2021 IE report why he felt a diagnosis was not warranted despite testing showing high-mild/low-moderate symptoms of depression and Rampersad’s report of mild anxiety while driving, and mild to moderate anxiety as a passenger. As such was not persuaded by his opinion.
- Jevco did not explain why a virtual psychological assessment was insufficient to address whether the Rampersad sustained a psychological impairment. Nor did they point to any CNR’s that it believed would have altered Ms. Grinberg’s opinion had she reviewed them prior to authoring her report.
- “While I agree with the respondent that a single diagnosis may not remove an insured from the MIG, I find that the anxiety symptoms endorsed by the applicant to both Ms. Grinberg and Dr. Ratti are corroborated by the records of his family physician, Dr. Aubrey Kassirer. On June 22, 2021, the applicant reported to Dr. Kassirer that he felt nervous driving since the accident, and wondered if he should see a mental health professional. On July 24, 2021, in a letter from Dr. Kassirer to the applicant’s legal representative, she noted that the applicant was experiencing anxiety related specifically to driving due to the accident, and recommended psychotherapy for this. I am accordingly persuaded by the preponderance of the evidence that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment as a result of the accident.”
- There was no relevance to Jevco’s submission that Ms. Grinberg is not a doctor and was not under the supervision of a doctor during her assessment or the drafting of her report as they did not explain why this would have been necessary, or why her opinion should be discounted as a result.
- The notice denying the psychological assessment in the amount of $2460 was found non-compliant with s38 (8) as the medical reasons did not provide what the condition was, why Jevco believed Rampersad belonged in the MIG, or what documentation it was relying on. The Plan was payable pursuant to s38 (11) as it was incurred before the responded curred their deficient notice following Aviva v. Catic.
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!