Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Professional and Ethical Challenges in Determinations of Causality of Psychological Disability

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 23 January 2016

Abstract

Psychologists serving as Qualified Medical Examiners (QMEs) in settings where mental and emotional damage claims (i.e., psychological disability stemming from psychological injury) are involved typically must comment not only upon the impact of the injury on the individual’s functioning and quality of life, but also on the causality of the psychological disability. This is a highly specialized endeavor for which little guidance exists. The disparate conceptualizations of causality in the fields of psychology and law and the unavoidable complexities associated with determining causality, especially the apportionment of causality across industrial and non-industrial factors, are discussed. The questions at the core of the present paper are: 1) What are the ethical challenges facing psychologists working as QMEs who are tasked with determining causality of psychological disability in the ways currently required by the law, and 2) What considerations should guide ethically-minded psychologists in such settings? The authors argue that, although some level of subjectivity is unavoidable, psychologists working within the legal system can take the lead in bringing an evidence-based approach and greater scientific rigor to the high-stakes causal evaluations required as a basis for determining compensation for injured workers.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although there are distinctions among different types of evaluative experts and different names used (e.g., Agreed Medical Examiners, Independent Medical Examiners, evaluator, expert, treating physician) depending on the various selection processes used to identify the expert, for the purposes of the present analysis, the term QME will be throughout. Further, while psychologists and psychiatrists can serve as QMEs for psychological injury cases, the focus of the present paper is on the role of psychologists in such settings.

  2. The terms “psychiatric injury” and “psychological injury” are often used interchangeably in the academic literature and in the law; however, to be consistent with the terminology used in this journal and other prominent works on the topic, the authors will refer to psychological injury and disability.

  3. Note that in cases involving violent acts, the phrasing is modified to read, “actual events of employment were a substantial cause of the injury.” Substantial cause is defined as, “at least 35 to 40 % of the causation from all sources combined (see CAL. LAB. CODE § 3208.3).

  4. The Supreme Court has defined substantial, as that, “which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164.

  5. Despite being removed from the DSM-5, the GAF is still used to rate disability of psychological injury in workers’ compensation settings.

  6. Note that the QME would also consider dates of injury and apportion based on date of injury pursuant to the decision Benson vs. WCAB (2009) 170 Cal. App.4th 1535, 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 113; Benson vs. The Permanente Medical Group (2007) 72 Cal. Comp Cases 1620 (WCAB en banc decision).

  7. Although, of note, the law simply requires that psychologists evaluate the individual to assess the presence of a “mental disorder which causes disability or need for medical treatment…diagnosed using the terminology and criteria of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition-Revised, or the terminology and diagnostic criteria of other psychiatric diagnostic manuals generally approved and accepted nationally by practitioners in the field of psychiatric medicine.” See CAL. LAB. CODE § 3208.3—thus, given the different diagnostic thresholds in different diagnostic manuals, there may be also be cause for concern in terms of heterogeneity of diagnosis.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2010). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.asp

  • American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for assessment of and intervention with persons with disabilities. The American Psychologist, 67, 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbisi, P. A., & Butcher, J. N. (2004). Failure of the FBS to predict malingering of somatic symptoms: Response to critiques by Greve and Bianchini and Lees Haley and Fox. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 341–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Blaue [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1411, [1975] 3 All E.R. 446, 61 Cr. App. Rep. 271.

  • Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, M. (2003). Instrument development: Cultural adaptations for ethnic minority research. In Bernal, G., Trimble, J. E., Burlew, A. K., & Leong, F. T. L. (Eds.), Handbook of racial & ethnic minority psychology (pp. 220–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Breslau, N., & Kessler, R. C. (2001). The stressor criterion in DSM-IV posttraumatic stress disorder: An empirical investigation. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 699–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., & Dahlstrom, W. G. (2003). The MMPI-2 restructured clinical scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

  • CAL. LAB. CODE § 4663 (West 2011).

  • CAL. LAB. CODE § 4664 (West 2011).

  • CAL. LAB. CODE § 3208.3(b)(3) (West 2011).

  • CAL. LAB. CODE § 4628 (West 2011).

  • CAL. LAB. CODE § 4660.1(c)(1) (West 2011).

  • California Senate. (2012). SB 863. Retrieved from https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/SB863/SB863.htm.

  • Cocchiarella, L., & Anderson, G. B. J. (Eds.). (2001). Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (5th ed.). Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo, B. (1928). The paradoxes of legal science. In B. A. Garner (Ed.), Black’s law dictionary (8th ed., p. 233). St. Paul, MN: West Group.

  • DuAlba, L., & Scott, R. L. (1993). Somatization and malingering for workers’ compensation applicants: A cross-cultural MMPI study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 913–917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • E. L. Yeager v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 922 [71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1687].

  • Engel, G. L. (1978). The biopsychosocial model and the education of health professionals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 310, 169–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604 [70 CCC 604] (Appeals Board en banc decision ).

  • Faieta, M. (2005). Civil liability for environmental torts. In T. Archibald & M. Cochrane (Eds.), Annual review of civil litigation: 2005 (pp. 21–58). Toronto, ON: Thomson/ Carswell.

    Google Scholar 

  • First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-TR axis I disorders, research version, patient edition with psychotic screen (SCID-I/PW/PSY SCREEN). New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute.

  • Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2004). Black’s law dictionary (8th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group.

  • Gholizadeh, S., Malcarne, V. L., & Schatman, M. E. (2015). Ethical quandaries for psychologists in workers’ compensation settings: The GAF gaffe. Psychological Injury and Law, 8, 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbertson, M. W., Shenton, M. E., Ciszewski, A., Kasai, K., Lasko, N. B., Orr, S. P., & Pitman, R. K. (2002). Smaller hippocampal volume predicts pathologic vulnerability to psychological trauma. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1242–1247.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1987). The economic and scientific future of forensic psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 9, 831–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Introduction. In Handbook of Psychological Assessment (5th ed., pp. 9–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadler, N. M. (2013). Workers’ compensation, fibromyalgia, and Kafka. The Journal of Rheumatology, 40, 216–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. (2012). Substantial evidence and science, law and logic. GetMedLegal Magazine, 25, [Web post]. Retrieved August 01, 2015, from https://www.getmedlegal.com/articles/articles0412/harris-evidence.html

  • Haynes, S. N. (1992). Models of causality in psychopathology: Toward dynamic, synthetic and nonlinear models of behavior disorders. New York: Macmillan.

  • Hunsley, J., & Mash, E. J. (2007). Evidence-based assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 29–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446–455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iezzi, T., Duckworth, M. P., & Schenke, S. R. (2013). To crack or crumble: Use of the thin skull and crumbling skull rules. Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A. L., & Weisz, J. R. (2002). Assessing match and mismatch between practitioner-generated and standardized interview-generated diagnoses for clinic-referred children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 158–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, L. (1983). Causation issue in workers’ compensation mental disability cases: An analysis solutions and a perspective. The Vanderbilt Law Review, 36, 263–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, A.W. (2007). Conducting a psychological assessment. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 293–325) New York: Springer.

  • Kessler, R. C., Ciu, W. T., Deler, O., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of twelve-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 617–627.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, W. J., O’Neill, M., & Douglas, K. S. (2005). Empirical limits for the forensic assessment of PTSD litigants. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 121–149.

  • Labor and Workforce Development Agency, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers’ Compensation, Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities Under the Provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. (2005)

  • LaDou, J. (2005). Occupational medicine: The case for reform. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 396–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leckart, B. T. (2009). Apportioning psychological disability in workers’ compensation and assessing aggravation in personal injury litigation. 4, 1–2. [Web post]. Retrieved August 01, 2015, from http://drleckartwetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/newsletter_for-may-2009-on-apportionment.pdf

  • Leckart, B. T. (2012). Apportionment of orthopedically produced permanent psychiatric disability: Food for thought. GetMedLegal Magazine, 25, [Web post]. Retrieved August, 01, 2015, from https://www.getmedlegal.com/articles/articles0412/leckart-0psych-apportionment.html

  • Lonner, W. J. (1994). Culture and human diversity. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & Birman D. (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 230–243) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Markhan, M. G. (2014). No catastrophic injury? No psychiatric PD. Workcomp Central. [Web post]. Retrieved August 01, 2015, from https://www.workcompcentral.com/columns/show/id/16c233becbda8a7afe4432f12dd81cfd03a9215c

  • Matsumoto A. (1994). Reforming the reform: Mental stress claims under California’s workers’ compensation system. Loyola at Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1327–1366.

  • Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rassp, R. (2010). Can a risk factor become causative in California? LexisNexis Legal Newsroom Workers’ Compensation Law, [Wep post]. Retrieved August 01, 2015, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/b/workers-compensation-law-blog/archive/2010/06/28/can-a-risk-factor-become-causative-in-california.aspx

  • Reville, R. T., Seabury, S. A., Neuhauser, F. W., Burton, J. F., & Greenberg, M. D. (2005). An evaluation of California’s permanent disability rating system. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatman, M. E. (2012). Workers’ compensation and its potential for perpetuation of disability. In Handbook of Occupational Health and Wellness (pp. 341–361). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schatman, M. E., & Thoman, J. L. (2014). Cherry-picking records in independent medical examinations: Strategies for intervention to mitigate a legal and ethical imbroglio. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z. (2003). Psychological causality determination in personal injury and workers’ compensation contexts. In I. Z. Schultz & D. O. Brady (Eds.), Psychological injuries at trial (pp. 102–125). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z. (2008). Disentangling the disability quagmire in psychological injury: Part 1—Disability and return to work: Theories, methods, and applications. Psychological Injury and Law, 1, 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., & Stewart, A. M. (2008). Disentangling the disability quagmire in psychological injury and law. Psychological Injury and Law, 1, 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, G. T. (1993). Waste, fraud, and abuse in workers’ compensation: The recent California experience. Maryland Law Review, 52, 983–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, D. M., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2006). Blickets and babies: The development of causal reasoning in toddlers and infants. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1103–1115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan, J. S., Clopton, J. R., & Morgan, R. D. (2003). An MMPI-2 scale to detect malingered depression (Md scale). Assessment, 10, 382–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strunin, L., & Boden, L. I. (2004). The workers’ compensation system: Worker friend or foe? American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45, 338–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tolin, D. F., & Foa, E. B. (2006). Sex differences in trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder: A quantitative review of 25 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 959–992.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1993). Misuse of psychological tests in forensic settings: Some horrible examples. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 11, 55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1995). Psychological evaluations you need at trial: What they can and cannot do. Institute for Psychological Therapies, 7, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2007a). Causality: Concepts, issues, and recommendations. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 49–86). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2007b). Multicausal perspectives on psychological injury I: PTSD and MTBI. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 137–163). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2008). Causality and causation in law, medicine, psychiatry, and psychology: Progression or regression? Psychological Injury and Law, 1, 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G., & Kane, A. W. (2007). Causality in psychology and law. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 13–47). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G., Kane, A. W., & Nicholson, K. (2007). Causality of Psychological Injury. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

  • Young, G., & Shore, R. (2007). Dictionary of terms related to causality, causation, law, and psychology. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 87–135). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sarah Mills, M.S., M.P.H., and three additional reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that contributed to improving the final version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shadi Gholizadeh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gholizadeh, S., Malcarne, V.L. Professional and Ethical Challenges in Determinations of Causality of Psychological Disability. Psychol. Inj. and Law 8, 334–347 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9237-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9237-z

Keywords

Navigation