Contact Us

  MIG Update – September 22, 2025

Psychological Testing: Quality vs Quantity

This week, a MIG hold case where the Tribunal considered the reliability of psychological assessments, drawing a critical distinction between general psychological testing and the more specific practice of psychological validity testing.

The Tribunal’s decision placed significant weight on the contrasting methodologies employed. Its analysis demonstrates that merely conducting a wide array of psychological tests may be insufficient; the inclusion of validity testing, which helps to rule out the magnification of symptoms, can be a persuasive factor in determining the credibility of a psychological report.

Virtual Training – *NEW* Upcoming Fall Sessions

Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2025 upcoming Virtual Training sessions!

• SABS Expedited: October 6-10, 2025
• BI Fundamentals: December 1-5, 2025

*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion

Course details & register here +

In Ash vs. Intact Insurance Company (23-014504), Corey Ash was involved in an accident on May 12, 2022 and sought entitlement to four Treatment Plans for psychological assessment and physiotherapy services and removal from the MIG as he suffered from physical injuries and psychological impairments as a result of the accident.

He relied on the OCF-3 by chiropractor Dr. Violante dated May 2022, to show his physical injuries consisted of post-concussion syndrome with associated nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and headaches; dislocation, sprain, and strain injuries, malaise, fatigue, sleep disorder, irritability, anger, and nervousness. Further, the psychological associate Mr. Singh and psychotherapist Ms. Yong‘s report dated February 2023, as they diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, major depressive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and a phobia specific to travelling in motor vehicles.

Intact relied on the IE report by Dr. Mandel dated December 2022, to argue that Ash did not sustain accident-related psychological impairments. It submitted that no weight should be given to the psychological report by Mr. Singh and Ms. Yong because it was unclear whose opinion was advanced as the basis for the report’s conclusions; who conducted the psychometric testing; and who conducted the clinical interview. It also noted that there was no indication that validity testing was performed, or that records of Ash’s medical history were reviewed to inform its conclusions. Intact further submitted that Ash produced no evidence of accident-related psychological complaints to his family physician, or any other medical evidence to support either physical limitations or psychological injuries.

Ash argued that Intact’s s44 psychological IE report completed by Dr. Marc Mandel should be discounted as it involved fewer psychometric tests than Ash’s s25 report, relying as well on Elbahja v. Wawanesa (21-011095) to show that corroborating medical evidence is not required in order to rely upon the section 25 assessor’s opinions.

Get Your Stats Report!

inHEALTH’s Statistical Reports provide insights and analysis on the outcomes of Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) and court decisions.

Customize success rate reports on any variable relating to disputed AB claims captured in LAT and court decisions!

Decisions By Top 10 Insurers

*Sample Chart

Statistical Report fees are based on the complexity of your data request

Learn More & Get a Quote Here >

The Tribunal found:

• The post-concussion syndrome impairment that chiropractor Dr. Violate listed in the May 2022 OCF-3, fell outside her scope of practice for chiropractors. There was no other evidence in Ash’s medical records to support this diagnosis.
• I am persuaded by Dr. Mandel’s report. I agree that Dr. Mandel’s conclusions are more reliable because, in addition to interviewing and testing the applicant, he undertook a review of the applicant’s medical history that included clinical notes and records (i.e., the Thornhill Village Family Health Organization and the Royal Care Medical Center). In my view, it is notable that Dr. Mandel did not indicate any history of psychological complaints or impairment in these medical records. In fact, the applicant confirmed to Dr. Mandel in December 2022 that he had not yet seen his family physician in relation to the May 2022 accident.”
• Dr. Mandel used validity measures to assess the reliability of Ash’s own reports about his symptomology. “Dr. Mandel used the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptoms (“SIMS”) and determined a pattern of responding that falls within the acceptable standard and is not indicative or suggestive of an individual who is likely malingering or magnifying symptom presentation. The applicant reported no persistent sadness or low mood to Dr. Mandel, which I accept as a persuasive indicator of psychological functioning that is not impaired by the accident.”
• In contrast, the report by Mr. Singh and Ms. Wong did not review Ash’s medical history or conduct through validity testing. Further, it was unclear who actually made the diagnoses and whether that professional was qualified to offer mental health diagnoses.
• “I note that the report compiled by Mr. Singh and Ms. Wong describes a “standardized method” of “detection strategy” to distinguish honest responding in the testing they performed. However, I find they did not include the results of the applicant’s performance on these measures in their report. And while I agree that the section 25 assessors used a broader range of tests to investigate the applicant’s psychological performance—and identified multiple impairments in contrast to the testing performed by Dr. Mandel—I nevertheless assigned less weight to the diagnoses offered in the report because there is little corroborating medical evidence to support accident-related psychological impairment.”
• “The applicant’s reliance on Elbahja, which is not binding on me, is of little value. In Elbahja, the Tribunal removed the insured from the MIG because a section 25 psychologist determined the insured sustained an accident-related psychological condition that was supported by psychometric testing. Similar to this matter, there were no complaints of psychological difficulties to the insured’s family physician or otherwise in the intervening nine months since the accident. However, I find Elbahja is nevertheless distinguishable from this matter, because here the respondent relies on a section 44 psychological examination that rebuts the applicant’s section 25 assessment, which is corroborated by the lack of contemporaneous evidence of psychological impairment.”

Need a briefing on recent MIG trends or a case law training session for your team? We can help.

Contact us today or reach out on live chat to set up a tailored session or request a stat report and summary of recent MIG rulings.