MIG Update – June 7, 2021
Can a Supervised Psychotherapist Provide a Diagnosis?
In this week’s edition, the interplay between a supervising psychologist and a psychotherapist in rendering a psychological diagnosis is considered. The two cases discussed are contrasted, one demonstrating what is not accepted and a reconsideration outlining what is considered acceptable.
Factor: Psychologist Oversight of Psychotherapist for Diagnostic Purposes
In Satar v Aviva (20-001571), Satar relied on the psychological report of a clinical psychologist, and a psychotherapist to establish psychological impairment.
‘MIG hold’ – The Tribunal’s findings:
- Satar’s psychological assessment report relied upon was “of little evidentiary value”
- Although the report states that the psychotherapist was supervised by the psychologist, the report does not disclose the nature of the supervisory relationship or specify who rendered the diagnoses
- The wording of the diagnoses section alternates between “my opinion” and “our opinion”, making it impossible to determine whether or the extent to which the psychologist was exercising his clinical judgment in diagnosing Satar with adjustment disorder and specific phobia
- Only a psychologist is qualified to make a psychological diagnosis; psychotherapists are not licenced to assess and diagnose psychological conditions in Ontario
In the original decision of B.E. v Aviva (18-005760), B.E. was found to have suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairment that removed her from the MIG. B.E.’s psychological assessment report was based on testing done by a psychotherapist in the psychologist’s office and it was not clear as to who wrote the report. Despite this, the Tribunal accepted the report as the psychotherapist worked under the direction, and with the approval of the psychologist. Said report was supported by the Respondent’s IE which reported the Applicant feeling 90% disabled in relationships with others and a 100% negative change in her emotional condition.
The Respondent sought reconsideration, arguing that the report says a psychologist oversaw the assessment, but the report was not signed or dated by the psychologist. That led to an error of fact, which would have led to a different result.
‘MIG escape’ – The Tribunal’s findings:
- The report in evidence supports that it was signed and dated by the psychologist
- The report also expresses that parts of the assessment were conducted by the psychotherapist under the supervision of the psychologist
- There was no significant error of law or fact. The diagnosis was made by the psychologist, and may be relied upon as evidence.
Head to the Compendium for our case summary to read the full synopsis
Join Our Community of Subscribers!
inHEALTH’s LAT Compendium Service gets you the most up to date decisions, case summaries and information from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT). Our industry-leading case summaries and organized search filters put unbiased, factually-based information at your fingertips to guide decision making and drive effective & efficient evaluation – Subscribe Now
inHEALTH Keeps you LAT inFORMED With Access To:
1. LAT Compendium Database – a relational database of LAT and Divisional Court Decisions equipped with multiple search options, Smart Filters, and concise case summaries
2. Notifications: – weekly LAT inFORMER delivered to your inbox Wednesdays; Newly Added Decisions on Fridays and Breaking News as and when it happens
3. Research Support: – inHEALTH’s Live Chat Experts for guided searches and technical inquiries.
Sign up for a 30 day free trial below to experience the service and see how it can help guide your decision making.