2018 CanLII 115661 (ON LAT)
Licence Appeal Tribunal | File No. 17-008086/AABS | Date: 2018-10-03 | Hearing: Written hearing | Adjudicator: Christopher A. Ferguson
PSR Role: validity testing
Dr. David Prendergast administered multiple standardized validation tests including the REY Memory Test, TOMM, Modified Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire, and Pain Symptom Rating Scale. The testing indicated over-reporting and malingering responses, which supported the conclusion that the applicant was an unreliable historian.
Why It Matters: The decision demonstrates PSR being used within a forensic psychological assessment presented before the LAT to evaluate symptom credibility and exaggeration.
Key Holding: PSR formed part of the validity testing relied upon by the insurer’s psychological examiner and accepted by the tribunal when assessing the reliability of the applicant’s self-reported symptoms.
This decision references the Pain Symptom Rating Scale as part of a psychological validity-testing battery used to assess the credibility of self-reported symptoms in a non-earner benefit dispute.
Citation
17-008086 v Aviva Insurance Canada, 2018 CanLII 115661 (ON LAT), released October 3, 2018.
Facts and Context
The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident and alleged that accident-related impairments prevented her from carrying on a normal life.
The insurer denied the claim and relied on multidisciplinary independent medical examinations.
Role of PSR
The insurer’s psychological examiner administered several standardized tests including the REY Memory Test, TOMM, Modified Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire, and the Pain Symptom Rating Scale.
The results indicated significant exaggeration of cognitive and pain symptoms.
Tribunal Treatment of the Evidence
The adjudicator found the insurer examination reports persuasive and concluded that the applicant was an unreliable historian.
The tribunal ultimately preferred the insurer’s medical evidence over the applicant’s reports.
Why the Decision Matters
The case illustrates the use of PSR within a psychometric validity-testing battery in insurer psychological examinations presented before the LAT.
The tribunal relied on the overall validity-testing evidence when assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claimed impairments.
Practice Note
This decision is most useful as an example of PSR appearing in standardized validity-testing methodology within a tribunal proceeding.
Quoted Passages
Validity testing battery
Tests administered included REY Memory Test, TOMM memory test, Modified Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire, Pain Symptom Rating Scale and Brief Carroll Depression Scale.
para. 9
Exaggeration finding
Tests indicate extreme exaggeration of cognitive symptoms and pain symptoms, among other validity problems.
para. 9
Issues
Entitlement to non-earner benefits: Denied
Findings
Result Summary: The applicant failed to establish entitlement to non-earner benefits.
PSR-Related Finding: Validity testing, including the Pain Symptom Rating Scale, indicated over-reporting and malingering responses.
Quoted Outcome: Tests indicate extreme exaggeration of cognitive symptoms and pain symptoms, among other validity problems.
Cautions
The tribunal accepted the conclusions of the overall psychological assessment rather than specifically analyzing PSR methodology.
PSR appears as one component within a broader validity-testing battery.