Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A novel methodology for the objective ascertainment of psychic and existential damage

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Personal injury is a legal term for a physical or psychic injury suffered by the plaintiff under civil and/or tort law. With reference to non-pecuniary damages, the evidence itself of physical and/or psychic injury is not sufficient for damage compensation. The process of ascertaining impairments and/or disabilities which pertain to the “personal sphere” of the individual, such as pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and/or psycho-existential damage, poses particular difficulties in relation to the obtainment of scientific evidence. The “immateriality” and the subjective connotation of the personal sphere are, in themselves, critical issues. The clinical data obtained from the neuropsychological ascertainment find their essential prerequisite in the active participation of the examinee who, in legally relevant contexts (criminal law, civil law, insurance), may be “affected” by personal interests. The present manuscript presents a novel interdisciplinary methodology, experimented on a series of judicial and extra-judicial cases, aimed at the attainment of objectivity and accuracy eligible in relation to the judicial settlement of cases and other matters involving the ascertainment of peculiar aspects of non-pecuniary damage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferrara SD, Baccino E, Boscolo-Berto R, Comandè G, Domenici R, Hernandez-Cueto C, Gulmen MK, Mendelson G, Montisci M, Norelli GA, Pinchi V, Ranavaya M, Shokry DA, Sterzik V, Vermylen Y, Vieira DN, Viel G, Zoja R, Members of the IALM Working Group on Personal Injury and Damage (2016) Padova charter on personal injury and damage under civil-tort law: medico-legal guidelines on methods of ascertainment and criteria of evaluation. Int J Legal Med 130(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mendelson G, Mendelson D (1996) Malingering. Aust Lawyer 31(7):26–27

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mendelson G, Mendelson D (1993) Legal and psychiatric aspects of malingering. J Law Med 1:28–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Inman TH, Berry DT (2002) Cross-validation of indicators of malingering: a comparison of nine neuropsychological tests, four tests of malingering, and behavioral observations. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 17(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Morse CL, Douglas-Newman K, Mandel S, Swirsky-Sacchetti T (2013) Utility of the Rey-15 recognition trial to detect invalid performance in a forensic neuropsychological sample. Clin Neuropsychol 27(8):1395–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boone KB, Lu P, Back C, King C, Lee A, Philpott L, Shamieh E, Warner-Chacon K (2002) Sensitivity and specificity of the Rey dot counting test in patients with suspect effort and various clinical samples. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 17(7):625–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boone KB, Lu P, Sherman D, Palmer B, Back C, Shamieh E, Warner-Chacon K, Berman NG (2000) Validation of a new technique to detect malingering of cognitive symptoms: the b test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 15(3):227–241

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roberson CJ, Boone KB, Goldberg H, Miora D, Cottingham M, Victor T, Ziegler E, Zeller M, Wright M (2013) Cross validation of the b Test in a large known groups sample. Clin Neuropsychol 27(3):495–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Edens JF, Poythress NG, Watkins-Clay MM (2007) Detection of malinger-ing in psychiatric unit and general population prison inmates: a comparison of the PAI, SIMS, and SIRS. J Pers Assess 88(1):33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rogers R, Robinson EV, Gillard ND (2014) The SIMS screen for feigned mental disorders: the development of detection-based scales. Behav Sci Law 32(4):455–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lange RT, Sullivan KA, Scott C (2010) Comparison of MMPI-2 and PAI validity indicators to detect feigned depression and PTSD symptom reporting. Psychiatry Res 176(2–3):229–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mason LH, Shandera-Ochsner AL, Williamson KD, Harp JP, Edmundson M, Berry DT, High WM Jr (2013) Accuracy of MMPI-2-RF validity scales for identifying feigned PTSD symptoms, random responding, and genuine PTSD. J Pers Assess 95(6):585–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gierok SD, Dickson AL, Cole JA (2005) Performance of forensic and non-forensic adult psychiatric inpatients on the test of memory malingering. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 20(6):755–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Greub BL, Suhr JA (2006) The validity of the letter memory test as a measure of memory malingering: robustness to coaching. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 21(4):249–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Greve KW, Bianchini KJ, Heinly MT, Love JM, Swift DA, Ciota M (2008) Classification accuracy of the Portland digit recognition test in persons claiming exposure to environmental and industrial toxins. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 23(3):341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kelly PJ, Baker GA, van den Broek MD, Jackson H, Humphries G (2005) The detection of malingering in memory performance: the sensitivity and specificity of four measures in a UK population. Br J Clin Psychol 44(3):333–341

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hom J, Denney RL (2002) Detection of response bias in forensic neuropsychology. Haworth Medical Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Morgan JE, Sweet JJ (2009) Neuropsychology of malingering casebook. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stracciari A, Bianchi A, Sartori G (2010) Neuropsicologia forense. Il Mulino, Bologna

  20. Young G (2014) Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury: implications for practice and court. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR (2003) Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol 85(2):197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sartori G, Agosta S, Zogmaister C, Ferrara SD, Castiello U (2008) How to accurately detect autobiographical events. Psychol Sci 19(8):772–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Agosta S, Sartori G (2013) The autobiographical IAT: a review. Front Psychol 4:519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu X, Rosenfeld PJ (2012) Combining the P300-complex trial-based con-cealed information test and the reaction time-based autobiographical implicit association test in concealed memory detection. Psychophysiology 49:1090–1100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hu X, Rosenfeld JP, Bodenhausen GV (2012) Combating automatic autobiographical associations: the effect of instruction and training in strategically concealing information in the autobiographical implicit association test. Psychol Sci 23:1079–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Freng S, Kehn A (2013) Determining true and false witnessed events: can an eyewitness-implicit association test distinguish between the seen and unseen? Psychiatry Psychol Law 20:761–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University-Hospital of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35128, Padova, Italy

    Santo Davide Ferrara, Viviana Ananian, Rafael Boscolo–Berto, Claudio Terranova & Guido Viel

  2. University of Montpellier, Hôpital Lapeyronie, 191 Av. du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295, Montpellier, Cedex, France

    Eric Baccino

  3. Department of Clinical, Surgical, and Molecular Pathology, Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy

    Ranieri Domenici

  4. Department of Legal Medicine, Forensic Toxicology and Anthropology, University of Granada, Avda. de Madrid 11, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Claudio Hernàndez-Cueto

  5. Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, c/PO Box 2499, Caulfield Junction, Vic, 3161, Australia

    George Mendelson

  6. Department of Health Sciences, Forensic Sciences Section, Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy

    Gian Aristide Norelli

  7. Division of Disability Medicine, Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University, Huntington, 1600 Medical Center Drive, Huntington, 25701, WV, USA

    Mohammed Ranavaya

  8. Department of Forensic Medicine, Ethics and Medical Law, Faculty of Medicine, Pólo das Ciências da Saúde - Unidade Central, Azinhaga de Santa Comba, Celas, University of Coimbra, 3000-354, Coimbra, Portugal

    Duarte Nuno Vieira

  9. Department of Legal Medicine, Toxicology and Physical Anthropology, University of Granada, Avda Madrid 11, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Enrique Villanueva

  10. Department of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Section of Legal Medicine, University of Milan, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 37, 20133, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo Zoia

  11. Department of Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy

    Giuseppe Sartori

Authors
  1. Santo Davide Ferrara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Viviana Ananian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Baccino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rafael Boscolo–Berto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ranieri Domenici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Claudio Hernàndez-Cueto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. George Mendelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gian Aristide Norelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mohammed Ranavaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Claudio Terranova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Duarte Nuno Vieira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Guido Viel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Enrique Villanueva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Riccardo Zoia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Giuseppe Sartori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Santo Davide Ferrara.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferrara, S.D., Ananian, V., Baccino, E. et al. A novel methodology for the objective ascertainment of psychic and existential damage. Int J Legal Med 130, 1387–1399 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1366-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1366-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation