Psychological Injury and Law

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 360–375 | Cite as

Functioning Well in a Dysfunctional System: Recommendations for Clinical Psychologists in Workers’ Compensation Settings

  • Shadi Gholizadeh
  • Vanessa L. Malcarne
  • Michael E. Schatman
Article

Abstract

Clinical psychologists working in workers’ compensation (WC) settings face unique and complex professional and ethical challenges. The present paper provides recommendations to clinical psychologists for avoiding the largely unintentional harm to clients and unethical practices that can occur within the realm of WC. Although the psychologists working in WC settings more often than not act in ethical ways grounded in years of academic and professional training, the unique tasks required of psychologists in WC settings (e.g., rating injuries; determinations of causality) and the pressures inherent in the system can potentially lead even the most well-intentioned mental health professionals into unsavory ethical and professional scenarios. The authors examine the (un)witting contributions of psychologists to the current dysfunction in the WC system and provide recommendations for traversing the oft-serpentine terrain of mental health evaluations and treatment in WC settings. Specifically, the authors discuss, among the many possible potential pitfalls, (1) bringing personal bias into the evaluative setting, (2) engaging in unsavory advertising practices, (3) cherry-picking and other missteps in record review, (4) engaging in cursory consenting, (5) failure to engage in evidence-based assessment and report writing, and (6) role challenges.

Keywords

Workers’ compensation Psychological injury Ethics QME 

References

  1. American Medical Association. (2005). Standards for independent medical examinations. Available at: http://www.aimehi.com/PDFs/IME%20standards%20for%20AIMEHI%20web%20site.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2016.
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
  4. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck depression inventory (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, B. E., Bricklin, P. M., Harris, E., Knapp, S., VandeCreek, L., & Younggren, J. N. (2006). Assessing and managing risk in psychological practice: An individualized approach. Rockville, MD: American Psychological Association Insurance Trust.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 153Google Scholar
  8. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 35Google Scholar
  9. Cramer, R. J., DeCoster, J., Harris, P. B., Fletcher, L. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2011). A confidence-credibility model of expert witness persuasion: Mediating effects and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  11. Davis-Coelho, K., Waltz, J., & Davis-Coelho, B. (2000). Awareness and prevention of bias against fat clients in psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 682–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, C. B. (2003). Decoding the ethics code. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, M. A. (2008). Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice model. American Psychologist, 63, 1–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, C. B., & Oransky, M. (2008). Informed consent to psychotherapy: Protecting the dignity and respecting the autonomy of patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 576–588.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C., 293 F. 1013 (1923).Google Scholar
  18. Garb, H. N. (2013). Cognitive and social factors influencing clinical judgment in psychiatric practice. World Psychiatry, 12, 108–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gholizadeh, S., & Malcarne, V. L. (2015). Professional and ethical challenges in determinations of causality of psychological disability. Psychological Injury and Law, 8, 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gold, L. H., Anfang, S. A., Drukteinis, A. M., Metzner, J. L., Price, M., Wall, B. W., & Zonana, H. V. (2008). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic evaluation of psychiatric disability. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 36, S3–S50.Google Scholar
  22. Gonzales, L., Davidoff, K. C., Nadal, K. L., & Yanos, P. T. (2015). Microaggressions experienced by persons with mental illnesses: An exploratory study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 38, 234–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodman‐Delahunty, J., & Foote, W. E. (1995). Compensation for pain, suffering, and other psychological injuries: the impact of Daubert on employment discrimination claims. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 13, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231–1238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenberg, L. R., & Gould, J. W. (2001). The treating expert: A hybrid role with firm boundaries. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Introduction. In Handbook of psychological assessment (5th ed., pp. 9–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Gutheil, T. G., & Bursztajn, H. (2003). Avoiding ipse dixit mislabeling: Post-Daubert approaches to expert clinical opinions. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 31, 205–210.Google Scholar
  29. Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hudgins, C., Rose, S., Fifield, P. Y., & Arnault, S. (2013). Navigating the legal and ethical foundations of informed consent and confidentiality in integrated primary care. Families, Systems & Health, 31, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James, J. W., & Haley, W. E. (1995). Age and health bias in practicing clinical psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 10, 610–616.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jordan, J. (2016). The battle over reliable expert testimony: Florida courts may stop using Daubert, but not in workers’ compensation. LexisNexis Legal Newsroom Workers’ Compensation Law, [Web post]. Retrieved June 07, 2016, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/b/recent-cases-news-trends-developments/archive/2016/02/02/the-battle-over-reliable-expert-testimony-florida-courts-may-stop-using-daubert-but-not-in-workers-compensation.aspx
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirsch, I., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstat, A. (1993). Adult Literacy in America: A first look at the findings of the national adult literacy survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  35. Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (1993). Legal and ethical issues in billing patients and collecting fees. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2008). The ethics of advertising, billing, and finances in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 613–625.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kubany, E. S., Leisen, M. B., Kaplan, A. S., Watson, S. B., Haynes, S. N., Owens, J. A., & Burns, K. (2000). Development and preliminary validation of a brief broad-spectrum measure of trauma exposure: The traumatic life events questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 12, 210–224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ladou, J. (2010). Workers’ compensation in the United States: Cost shifting and inequities in a dysfunctional system. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 20, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lax, M., & Manetti, F. A. (2001). Access to medical care for individuals with workers’ compensation claims. New Solutions, 11, 325–348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lees-Haley, P. R., English, L. T., & Glenn, W. J. (1991). A fake bad scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lippel, K. (2007). Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: A Quebec study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 427–443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. MacEachen, E., Ferrier, S., & Chambers, L. (2007). A deliberation on ‘hurt versus harm’ logic in early-return-to-work policy. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 5, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., Ferrier, S., & Chambers, L. (2010). The “toxic dose” of system problems: Why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 349–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Marlowe, D. B. (1995). A hybrid decision framework for evaluating psychometric evidence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 13, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mason, J., & Scior, K. (2004). ‘Diagnostic overshadowing’ amongst clinicians working with people with intellectual disabilities in the UK. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matsumoto, A. (1994). Reforming the reform: Mental stress claims under California’s workers’ compensation system. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1327–1366.Google Scholar
  47. Meehl, P. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicholson, R. A., & Norwood, S. (2000). The quality of forensic psychological assessments, reports, and testimony: Acknowledging the gap between promise and practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 9–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A., & Brancati, F. L. (2003). Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 721–726.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Piechowski, L. D. (2011). Evaluation of workplace disability. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Price, P. C., & Stone, E. R. (2004). Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: Evidence for a confidence heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schatman, M. E. (2009). Working to avoid collateral emotional harm to clients: Cases and recommendations for the personal injury attorney. Psychological Injury and Law, 2, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Schatman, M. E., & Thoman, J. L. (2014). Erratum to: Cherry-picking records in independent medical examinations: Strategies for intervention to mitigate a legal and ethical imbroglio. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schatman, M. E., & Thoman, J. L. (2015). Valid psychological injury claims: Respecting the needs of survivors. Psychological Injury and Law, 8, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwarz, N., & Scheuring, B. (1992). Selbstberichtete Verhaltens-und Symptomhäufigkeiten: Was Befragte aus Antwortvorgaben des Fragebogens lernen. Frequency reports of psychosomatic symptoms: What respondents learn from response alternatives. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, 22, 197–208.Google Scholar
  58. Shanteau, J. (1992). Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shuman, D. W. (1997). What should we permit mental health professionals to say about “the best interests of the child”?: An essay on common sense, “Daubert”, and the rules of evidence. Family Law Quarterly, 31, 551–569.Google Scholar
  60. Stallworth v. Shuler, 777 F.2d 1431 (11th Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  61. Strunin, L., & Boden, L. I. (2004). The workers’ compensation system: Worker friend or foe? American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45, 338–345.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sullivan, M. J., & Main, C. (2007). Service, advocacy and adjudication: Balancing the ethical challenges of multiple stakeholder agendas in the rehabilitation of chronic pain. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 1596–1603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sumanti, M., Boone, K. B., Savodnik, I., & Gorsuch, R. (2006). Noncredible psychiatric and cognitive symptoms in a workers’ compensation “stress” claim sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 754–765.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Tracey, T. J., Wampold, B. E., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Expertise in psychotherapy: An elusive goal? American Psychologist, 69, 218–229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Wise, E. A. (2016). Psychological injuries, workers’ compensation insurance, and mental health policy issues. Psychological Injury and Law. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s12207-016-9274-2.
  67. Woody, R. H. (2016). Psychological testimony and the Daubert standard. Psychological Injury and Law, 9, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Worthen, M. D., & Moering, R. G. (2011). A practical guide to conducting VA compensation and pension exams for PTSD and other mental disorders. Psychological Injury and Law, 4, 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Young, G. (2008). Causality and causation in law, medicine, psychiatry, and psychology: Progression or regression? Psychological Injury and Law, 1, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State UniversityUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Pain FoundationBellevue, WA/MiddletownUSA

Personalised recommendations