A professional tapped by an insurer to conduct psychometric evaluations on an injured policyholder is being criticized for his unusual approach to testing.
Neuropsychologist Kerry Lawson was called out by Ontario’s Financial Services Commission for the dubious testimonial he gave of Gary Sopher, a Primmum Insurance policyholder. Lawson testified that Sopher had been exaggerating his symptoms – an assessment that both officials and experts have called “outrageous” – based on his unorthodox testing of the policyholder involving untrained and unlicensed personnel.
Register for our exclusive CE webinar Cyber Insurance 101, and get covered on selling cyber.
“I found all of the above to be very disturbing,” said Financial Services Commission arbitrator David Snider. “Dr. Lawson was not conducting himself properly as an expert assessor of Mr. Sopher but was, instead, actively promoting the insurer’s case.”
In August 2012, Sopher was riding on his Harley Davidson motorcycle north of Toronto when another vehicle caused him to lose control of the bike. He ended up rolling over several times, with the bike ultimately lying on top of him.
Sopher’s insurer would only provide the basic level of accident benefits – under $90,000, at that time – but he claimed that he had suffered catastrophic injuries – a designation that would make him eligible for up to $2 million in treatment and “attendant-care” benefits.
To determine Sopher’s eligibility, Primmum Insurance sent Lawson – one of three medical experts the company calls for these types of cases,
National Post reported.
Although trusted by the insurer, Lawson’s testing method for this particular case was brought into question.
Lawson brought his own daughter – a university student in a field unrelated to neuropsychology – to help out in his evaluation of Sopher. An Ontario tribunal said that Lawson’s daughter was “actively engaged” in conversation about “entirely irrelevant matters” with Sopher’s own daughter, who was also present during the testing.
During the tribunal, Lawson claimed that Sopher was a challenging patient who often dwelled on the pain he was experiencing. The neuropsychologist additionally argued that the assessment required unconventional measures, such as allowing Sopher’s daughter to be present. It was Sopher’s daughter that “interjected,” which triggered the conversation between her and Lawson’s daughter.
Rhona Desroches of the FAIR advocacy group told
National Post that the circumstances of Sopher’s evaluation were “outrageous.”
“These are very seriously injured people and the quality of their lives hangs in the balance when these reports are written, and the testing has to be of a certain standard,” Desroches said.
Related stories:
ICBC blamed by judge for woman’s “ongoing misery”
Judge orders insurer to replace sedative drinker’s car
