2015 ONFSCDRS 113 | 2015 ONFSCDRS 113 (CanLII)
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Arbitration | File No. FSCO A09-001538 | Date: 2015-05-27 | Hearing: Oral hearing and written submissions | Adjudicator: Jeffrey Rogers (Arbitrator)
PSR Role: psychological symptom amplification testing
A psychologist conducted standardized testing including the Pain Symptom Rating Scale to evaluate the credibility and psychological basis of the claimant’s reported pain. The results reflected symptom amplification and magnification but did not indicate malingering.
Why It Matters: The decision demonstrates PSR being used within formal psychological assessment relied upon in a tribunal determination involving catastrophic impairment.
Key Holding: PSR findings were accepted as evidence of pain amplification associated with a psychological pain disorder.
This arbitration decision examines entitlement to accident benefits and catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.
Citation
Paraloganathan Nadesu v Zurich Insurance Company Ltd., 2015 ONFSCDRS 113.
Background
The applicant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and later reported increasing pain, declining mental health and reduced functional capacity.
A central issue in the arbitration was whether the accident caused a mental disorder resulting in catastrophic impairment.
Psychological Assessment
A psychologist conducted standardized testing designed to evaluate exaggeration and the psychological basis of reported pain symptoms.
The testing battery included the Pain Symptom Rating Scale.
Role of Pain Symptom Rating Scale
Results on the Pain Symptom Rating Scale were described as reflective of symptom amplification and pain magnification.
The psychologist explained that such results commonly occur in individuals who are strongly pain-focused and experiencing a psychological pain disorder.
Tribunal Analysis
The arbitrator accepted the psychological evidence indicating that the applicant suffered from a pain disorder associated with psychological factors.
This evidence contributed to the finding that the accident caused significant mental impairment.
Quoted Passages
PSR results
Mr. Nadesu’s responses on the Pain Symptom Rating Scale were reflective of symptom amplification and magnification.
psychological assessment discussion
Interpretation
Persons with Mr. Nadesu’s test results typically have a large gap between demonstrable organic pathology and their perception of pain.
psychological assessment discussion
Issues
Whether the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment: Allowed
Entitlement to attendant care benefits: Allowed in part
Entitlement to payment for Botox injections: Denied
Findings
Result Summary: The arbitrator concluded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment caused by the accident and was entitled to attendant care benefits.
PSR-Related Finding: Psychological testing including the Pain Symptom Rating Scale indicated symptom amplification associated with a diagnosable pain disorder rather than malingering.