Channel 7’s insurer cuts off compensation after MKR contestant refuses controversial psychological test

A former MKR contestant who was awarded compensation from Channel 7 has been required to take a controversial psychological test.

EXCLUSIVE

A former My Kitchen Rules contestant who was awarded compensation from Channel 7 had her weekly payments suspended after she refused to undergo a controversial and “traumatic” psychological test.

Piper O’Neill, who appeared on the 2019 season of the reality cooking competition where she was part of a much-hyped “sex scandal” storyline, lodged a workers compensation claim last year for psychological injury due to alleged vilification and bullying from producers and the network.

In April, Channel 7 was ordered to pay the former beauty queen $400 per week – but last month the broadcaster’s insurer GIO suspended her benefits after she refused to attend a psychologist’s appointment for “psychometric testing”.

Psychometric testing, a field of personality testing commonly used in recruiting, has been criticised by some as pseudoscience, with The New York Times labelling it “the astrology of the office”.

“It’s quite traumatic for people to go through,” said Ms O’Neill’s lawyer Carmine Santone.

“It goes for hours. For people that aren’t well … it’s very difficult even for someone going for a job interview that is well.”

Lawyers acting for Channel 7 wrote in a September letter that a psychologist would be “conducting forensic psychological assessment that encompasses your client’s diagnosis, any recommended treatment and any treatments your client has received” and would “provide a certificate of incapacity for work”.

Ms O’Neill refused, and her payments were cut off.

My Kitchen Rules 2019 contestants Veronica Cristovao and Piper O’Neill. Picture: Justin Lloyd

Her lawyers challenged the decision, arguing a psychologist was not a “medical practitioner” as defined by the legislation.

The matter was heard by the Personal Injury Commission of NSW, which earlier this month ruled in Ms O’Neill’s favour.

Commission member Carolyn Rimmer found that a psychologist was not a “medical practitioner” for the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act and thus “there has been no refusal by the applicant to submit herself for examination by a ‘medical practitioner’”.

“The use of the term ‘medical practitioner’ in the legislation and guidelines rather than terms such as ‘health practitioner’ or even ‘medical expert’, supports the view that the term medical practitioner should be read to mean a person who is registered under the relevant law in the medical profession,” she said.

Ms Rimmer found that the term “medical practitioner” as used in the Act “should be interpreted consistently with the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law NSW and the term ‘medical practitioner’ does not include a ‘psychologist’, that is, a person registered in the ‘psychology profession’.”

“Any entitlement to recover compensation is not suspended,” Ms Rimmer said.

NSW courts have previously taken a dim view of accepting psychometric testing as evidence.

In one 2019 case, the NSW Court of Appeal described the results of a plaintiff’s psychometric testing as “seriously disturbing material” and noted the validity of the methodology was “impenetrable and unproven in court”.

NSW workers compensation guidelines state that “appropriate psychometric testing performed by a qualified clinical psychologist” may form part of a broader clinical assessment of an injured worker’s psychiatric symptoms.

Piper O’Neill was the Mrs Australia International 2015 winner.

“I accept that the guidelines provide for clinical assessment which may include the results of appropriate psychometric testing performed by a qualified clinical psychologist,” Ms Rimmer said in her decision.

“However, such test results are not mandatory requirement for an assessment to take place.”

Mr Santone said Ms O’Neill’s case was won on the first argument – the definition of medical practitioner – but that another issue her lawyers would have raised was the power imbalance.

GIO was attempting to send her to a psychiatrist and a psychologist for four hours of appointments over two days, something Mr Santone described as “completely unfair” and out of reach for most workers.

“We find that when insurance companies arrange them, the outcome is always the same,” he said.

“This sort of testing is designed to work out someone’s credibility, whether they’re telling the truth of not. What (insurers) normally do is use it to tell workers they’re malingering, that they have got capacity or they’re faking it or something along those lines.”

Mr Santone said it was “very rare that a worker can actually get their own psychometric testing in response”.

“It basically creates this unfair balance where the insurer has all this unfair medical evidence to try defeat the claim,” he said.

He said the suspension had caused Ms O’Neill “quite a bit of concern” and she was happy the matter was now resolved.

“She’s happy that her payments have been reinstated and that’s eased some financial pressure,” he said.

GIO and Channel 7 have been contacted for comment.