MMPI Malingering

State of New South Wales (Hunter New England Local Health District) v Bramble [2025] NSWPICPD 57 

The Appellant argued in the Conciliation/Arbitration that the Worker was malingering. This conclusion was based upon the report of Dr Paul Phillips, Psychologist, and the Appellant therefore disputed liability for any injury. Member Toohey determined the Worker suffered a psychological injury as a result of the incident occurring in the course of her employment. Member Toohey ordered the Appellant to pay the Worker weekly payments of compensation and her treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).  

The Appellant appealed the Member’s decision to the Deputy President. The dispute in the Appeal involved a consideration as to whether the Member erred by failing to accept the MMPI-2 assessment and preferring the medical evidence of the Worker’s treatment providers. 

DETERMINATION 

The Appellant asserted the Member was in error by rejecting the evidence of Dr Honey, the Appellant’s IME. The Deputy President considered that due to Dr Honey retracting his opinion entirely, his opinion added little to the matter as Dr Honey did not attempt to evaluate Dr Phillip’s opinion with regard to the opinions of the other IMEs in the matter. The Deputy President added that in the context of legal proceedings where the diagnosis of the Respondent’s condition was the central issue in the case, the Member was correct to observe that the evidence of Dr Honey added “little” to the resolution of the issue.  

“Dr Honey retracted his earlier opinion entirely on the basis of Dr Phillips’s assessment. In my view, his opinion adds little because he did not attempt to evaluate Dr Phillips’s opinion in light of Dr Young’s, Ms Pheiffer’s and Dr Smith’s opinions or even his own.” 

The Deputy President considered the Member was entitled to prefer the clinical opinions of the other IME reports over Dr Phillip’s malingering assessment. A treating examining Doctor who abandons an initial diagnosis must give clear reasons and reconcile the change with other medical evidence, blind acceptance of a psychometric assessment was not sufficient in legal proceedings.  

The Deputy President confirmed that the Worker suffered a psychological injury arising out of her employment, thus confirming the prior certificate of determination and the Appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the Worker was entitled to ongoing weekly compensation and treatment expenses.  

IMPLICATIONS 

The Commission accepted that whilst the MMPI-2 testing used by Dr Phillips can be a valid tool in some circumstances, it could not be used as a “stand-alone” diagnostic tool. The finding of malingering from this test would not override consistent clinical findings from the Worker’s treatment providers.  

Dr Phillips’ report was described as technically detailed, however it had limited value compared to the long term and consistent clinical findings from the Worker’s treatment providers. 

The Commission highlighted that the diagnosis of malingering not only contradicted the other evidence but it also worsened the Worker’s condition, due to her feeling as though Doctors did not believe her and she was lying about her symptoms. The President highlighted the risk of relying upon “adversarial assessments” in compensation disputes. 

This decision reinforces that malingering findings, even if supported by validated testing, such as MMPI-2, will not automatically displace treating doctors’ opinions unless they are supported by broader corroborative evidence and careful evaluation. 

Should you have any queries concerning a particular workers compensation matter, please contact our team on either (02) 8297 5900 or (02) 4929 9333.