The 4 Ds of Forensic Mental Health Assessments of Personal Injury

Civil Forensic Evaluation in Psychological Injury and Law: Legal, Professional, and Ethical Considerations

Psychologists who work as therapists or administrators, or who engage in forensic practice in criminal justice settings, find it daunting to transition into practice in civil cases involving personal injury, namely psychological injury from the psychological perspective. In civil cases, psychological injury arises from allegedly deliberate or negligent acts of the defendant(s) that the plaintiff contends caused psychological conditions to appear. These alleged acts are disputed in courts and other tribunals. Conditions considered in psychological injury cases include posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, chronic pain conditions, and sequelae of traumatic brain injury. This article outlines a detailed case sequence from referral through the end of expert testimony to guide the practitioner to work effectively in this field of practice. It addresses the rules and regulations that govern admissibility of expert evidence in court. The article provides ethical and professional guidance throughout, including best practices in assessment and testing, and emphasizes evidence-based forensic practice.

Medicolegal Expert Core Competencies and Professionalism

Medicolegal expert opinions can be the source of long and senseless acrimonious debates when they lack the necessary qualities to be considered good evidence. In contrast, quality medicolegal expert reports contribute significantly to the proper and prompt resolution of personal injury claims in civil litigation. To this end, expert physiatrists must develop the medicolegal mindset necessary to survive and thrive in the civil litigation arena. Medicolegal core competencies needed for this endeavor are identified and addressed for what is a lifelong learning project.

PTSD in Court III: Malingering, assessment, and the law

This journal's third article on PTSD in Court focuses especially on the topic's "court" component. It first considers the topic of malingering, including in terms of its definition, certainties, and uncertainties. As with other areas of the study of psychological injury and law, generally, and PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder), specifically, malingering is a contentious area not only definitionally but also empirically, in terms of establishing its base rate in the index populations assessed in the field. Both current research and re-analysis of past research indicates that the malingering prevalence rate at issue is more like 15±15% as opposed to 40±10%. As for psychological tests used to assess PTSD, some of the better ones include the TSI-2 (Trauma Symptom Inventory, Second Edition; Briere, 2011), the MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition, Restructured Form; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011), and the CAPS-5 (The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5; Weathers, Blake, Schnurr, Kaloupek, Marx, & Keane, 2013b). Assessors need to know their own possible biases, the applicable laws (e.g., the Daubert trilogy), and how to write court-admissible reports. Overall conclusions reflect a moderate approach that navigates the territory between the extreme plaintiff or defense allegiances one frequently encounters in this area of forensic practice.

Psychiatric/Psychological Injury and Law: Introduction

This special issue on psychiatric/psychological injury and law covers major developments in the field, and illustrates the complexities for mental health professionals in dealing with psychiatric/psychological injuries in court. The articles vary in the range of topics covered, and include ones on posttraumatic stress disorder, other trauma reactions, dissociation, disability, pain, and traumatic brain injury, in particular but also new areas, such as the effects of early penile injury. Work in the area of psychiatric/psychological injury and law needs to be scientifically-informed, comprehensive, and impartial, and the series of articles to follow will help workers in the area meet this standard.

Psychiatric/ psychological forensic report writing

Approaches to forensic report writing in psychiatry, psychology, and related mental health disciplines have moved from an organization, content, and stylistic framework to considering ethical and other codes, evidentiary standards, and practice considerations. The first part of the article surveys different approaches to forensic report writing, including that of forensic mental health assessment and psychiatric ethics. The second part deals especially with psychological ethical approaches. The American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct (2002) provide one set of principles on which to base forensic report writing. The U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence (2014) and related state rules provide another basis. The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2013) provide a third source. Some work has expanded the principles in ethics codes; and, in the third part of this article, these additions are applied to forensic report writing. Other work that could help with the question of forensic report writing concerns the 4 Ds in psychological injury assessments (e.g., conduct oneself with Dignity, avoid the adversary Divide, get the needed reliable Data, Determine interpretations and conclusions judiciously). One overarching ethical principle that is especially applicable in forensic report writing is to be comprehensive, scientific, and impartial. As applied to forensic report writing, the overall principle that applies is that the work process and product should reflect integrity in its ethics, law, and science. Four principles that derive from this meta-principle concern: Competency and Communication; Procedure and Protection; Dignity and Distance; and Data Collection and Determination. The standards or rules associated with each of these principles are reviewed.