2022 ONLAT 20-004136/AABS | 2022 CanLII 45256 (ON LAT)
Licence Appeal Tribunal | File No. 20-004136/AABS | Date: 2022-05-17 | Hearing: Written submissions | Adjudicator: Tanjoyt Deol
PSR Role: validity testing
The insurer psychologist administered several validity measures including the Pain Symptom Rating Scale. The applicant’s scores were higher than 97.3% of the normative sample, suggesting that her reported pain and activity limitations were invalid and exaggerated.
Why It Matters: The decision explicitly references PSR validity findings and relies on them as part of the reasoning supporting the tribunal’s credibility assessment and MIG determination.
Key Holding: PSR results were relied upon as objective validity testing demonstrating exaggerated symptom reporting.
This decision illustrates the use of the Pain Symptom Rating Scale within a psychological validity-testing battery used to evaluate the credibility of reported pain and impairment in a statutory accident benefits dispute.
Citation
Aragon v. Intact Insurance Company, 2022 ONLAT 20-004136/AABS, 2022 CanLII 45256 (ON LAT).
Facts and Context
The applicant sought multiple medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer maintained that the applicant’s injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and relied on insurer examinations and psychological testing.
Role of PSR
During the psychological insurer examination, the applicant underwent several validity measures including the Pain Symptom Rating Scale.
The PSR results indicated scores higher than 97.3% of the normative sample, suggesting exaggerated reporting of pain and activity limitations.
Tribunal Treatment of the Evidence
The adjudicator preferred the insurer psychological reports and noted repeated failures on validity testing across multiple assessments.
These validity findings undermined the credibility of the applicant’s self-reported symptoms.
Why the Decision Matters
The case demonstrates PSR being used as part of forensic psychological validity testing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
The tribunal relied on the results when assessing credibility and determining that the applicant remained within the Minor Injury Guideline.
Practice Note
This decision is particularly useful for demonstrating that PSR results have been referenced in tribunal reasoning when evaluating exaggerated symptom reporting.
Quoted Passages
PSR validity finding
The scores on the Pain Symptom Rating Scale showed more elevated scores than 97.3% of the normative sample.
para. 35
Validity testing concerns
Due to the serious concerns about the validity of her self-reporting, he was unable to conclude as to whether she met the criteria for a DSM-5 diagnosis.
para. 36
Issues
Whether the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries under the MIG: Yes
Entitlement to non-earner benefits: Denied
Entitlement to psychological services and other medical benefits: Denied
Findings
Result Summary: The tribunal found that the applicant’s injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied all disputed treatment benefits and non-earner benefits.
PSR-Related Finding: PSR testing showed extremely elevated scores suggesting invalid pain reporting and symptom exaggeration.
Quoted Outcome: The scores on the Pain Symptom Rating Scale showed more elevated scores than 97.3% of the normative sample.
Cautions
The tribunal relied on the full validity-testing battery rather than PSR alone.
The decision focuses on credibility and MIG status rather than a detailed methodological discussion of PSR.