B. W. v Royal SunAlliance Insurance

2017 CanLII 19203 (ON LAT)

Licence Appeal Tribunal | File No. 16-001517/AABS | Date: 2017-03-28 | Hearing: Written | Adjudicator: Sandeep Johal

PSR Role: validity testing

This LAT decision records that Dr. Sherri MacKay administered the MSPQ and PSR-R and gave evidence that the applicant did not suffer a psychological impairment related to the accident. The adjudicator found Dr. MacKay's assessment more persuasive than the competing social work opinion and held that the applicant remained within the MIG.

Why It Matters: This is a useful decision because it places PSR-R within accepted forensic psychological methodology and ties it to a report the adjudicator expressly preferred.

Key Holding: PSR-R formed part of psychological evidence accepted by the tribunal in rejecting the claim that the applicant suffered a psychological impairment taking him outside the MIG.

This decision is relevant because it shows PSR-R being used by a qualified clinical and forensic psychologist in a disputed LAT proceeding concerning MIG removal on psychological grounds.

Citation

B. W. v Royal SunAlliance Insurance, 2017 CanLII 19203 (ON LAT), released March 28, 2017.

Facts and Context

The applicant sought treatment benefits beyond the MIG and argued that pre-existing psychological problems and post-accident psychological symptoms took him outside the MIG.

The adjudicator had to determine whether the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries, whether there was a pre-existing condition that prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, and whether the applicant suffered a psychological impairment taking him outside the MIG.

Role of PSR

The tribunal recorded that Dr. Sherri MacKay, Clinical Psychologist, administered the Modified Somatic Perceptions Questionnaire and the Pain Symptom Ratings-Revised tests on the applicant.

Those instruments formed part of the psychological evidence relied on by Dr. MacKay in concluding that the applicant showed no accident-related psychological impairment taking him outside the MIG.

Tribunal Treatment of the Evidence

The adjudicator found Dr. MacKay more persuasive than the registered social worker, Joshua Pugen.

The decision emphasized Dr. MacKay's qualifications in clinical and forensic psychology and noted the lack of adequate supporting testing detail in the competing social work opinion.

Why the Decision Matters

This case supports the use of PSR-R as part of a structured forensic psychological assessment in an adjudicative setting.

It is especially helpful because the adjudicator expressly preferred the psychologist's evidence and noted the administration of PSR-R as part of that assessment.

Practice Note

Use this decision to show that PSR-R has been employed within accepted forensic psychological methodology before the LAT.

The safest characterization is that PSR-R was part of a psychological assessment the tribunal accepted as more persuasive than competing evidence, rather than as a direct judicial endorsement of PSR-R in isolation.

Quoted Passages

Issues

Whether the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries: Yes

Whether the applicant had a pre-existing condition preventing recovery under the MIG: No

Whether the applicant suffered a psychological impairment taking him outside the MIG: No

Findings

Result Summary: The applicant's injuries were found to be within the MIG, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were not payable.

PSR-Related Finding: The adjudicator preferred Dr. MacKay's psychological assessment, which included the MSPQ and PSR-R, over the opinion of the social worker.

Quoted Outcome: I also find the psychological assessment of Dr. Mackay more persuasive than the opinion of Mr. Pugen.

Cautions

This is not a stand-alone ruling on PSR admissibility.

The decision is strongest as an example of PSR-R being used within a broader psychological assessment that the adjudicator preferred.