2018 CanLII 76433 (ON LAT)
Licence Appeal Tribunal | File No. 16-003108/AABS | Date: 2018-04-25 | Hearing: Oral hearing | Adjudicator: Khizer Anwar
PSR Role: validity testing
The respondent’s psychologist administered PSR-R along with TOMM and other psychometric instruments. The results suggested the applicant magnified her symptoms and did not provide sufficiently reliable data for a psychological diagnosis.
Why It Matters: This decision demonstrates the use of PSR-R in a psychological validity-testing battery presented to the LAT in assessing the credibility of reported symptoms.
Key Holding: PSR-R formed part of the validity-testing evidence relied upon by the tribunal in evaluating the reliability of the applicant’s self-reported symptoms.
This decision references the Pain Symptoms Rating – Revised instrument within a psychological independent medical examination assessing the credibility of the applicant’s reported symptoms.
Citation
16-003108 v Certas Direct Insurance Company, 2018 CanLII 76433 (ON LAT), released April 25, 2018.
Facts and Context
The applicant sought non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and funding for a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied these benefits and relied in part on independent medical examinations conducted by a physician and a psychologist.
Role of PSR
The respondent’s psychologist conducted psychometric testing including several validity and reliability measures.
These included the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), Pain Symptoms Rating – Revised (PSR-R), the Oswestry Functional Assessment Questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Tribunal Treatment of the Evidence
The psychological assessor concluded that the applicant showed a tendency to grossly magnify her reported difficulties.
Due to the invalid test responses, the assessor determined there was insufficient reliable data to support a DSM diagnosis.
Why the Decision Matters
This decision illustrates the use of PSR-R within a broader battery of psychometric validity instruments in psychological insurer examinations.
The adjudicator relied on the totality of the evidence, including validity testing, when assessing the reliability of the applicant’s reported impairments.
Practice Note
The case is best cited as demonstrating PSR-R use in psychological validity testing presented before the LAT rather than as a standalone endorsement of PSR methodology.
Quoted Passages
PSR-R testing
Dr. Koepfler conducted psychometric testing including validity and reliability testing, including the TOMM test and pain symptoms rating – revised (PSR-R).
para. 67
Symptom magnification finding
Dr. Koepfler concluded that the applicant had a tendency to grossly magnify her difficulties.
para. 68
Issues
Entitlement to non-earner benefits: Denied
Entitlement to attendant care benefits: Denied
Entitlement to cost of chronic pain assessment: Denied
Findings
Result Summary: The applicant’s claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and a chronic pain assessment were dismissed.
PSR-Related Finding: Validity testing including PSR-R supported the conclusion that the applicant’s reported symptoms were exaggerated and unreliable.
Quoted Outcome: Dr. Koepfler conducted psychometric testing including validity and reliability testing such as TOMM and pain symptoms rating – revised (PSR-R).
Cautions
The decision does not analyze PSR-R methodology in detail.
PSR-R appears as one instrument within a broader validity-testing battery.