Skip to main content
Log in

Introducing Psychological Injury and Law

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

Abstract

Psychology injury and law is a specialized forensic psychology field that concerns reaching legal thresholds for actionable negligent or related injuries having a psychological component, such as for posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, and mild traumatic brain injury. The presenting psychological injuries have to be related causally to the event at issue, and if pre-existing injuries, vulnerabilities, or psychopathologies are involved at baseline, they have to be exacerbated by the event at issue, or added to in unique ways such that the psychological effects of the event at issue go beyond the de minimis range. The articles in this special issue deal with the legal aspects of cases of psychological injury, including in legal steps and procedures to follow and the causal question of whether an index event is responsible for claimed injuries. They deal with the major psychological injuries, and others such as somatic symptom disorder and factitious disorder. They address best practices in assessment such that testimony and reports proffered to court are probative, i.e., helping the trier of fact to arrive at judicious decisions. The articles in the special issue review the reliable and valid tests in the field, including those that examine negative response bias, negative impression management, symptom exaggeration, feigning, and possible malingering. The latter should be ruled in only through the most compelling evidence in the whole file of an examinee, including test results and inconsistencies. The court will engage in admissibility challenges when testimony, reports, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations do not meet the expected standards of being scientific, comprehensive, impartial, and having considered all the reliable data at hand. The critical topics in the field that cut across the articles in the special issue relate to (a) conceptual and definitional issues, (b) confounds and confusions, (c) assessment and testing, (d) feigning/malingering, and (e) medicolegal/legal/court implications. The articles in the special issue are reviewed in terms of these five themes.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994). DSM-IV: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2000). DSM-IV-TR: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (text revision) (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5). Washington, DC: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf.

  • Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation (rev. ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press (Original manual published in 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, K. J., Curtis, K. L., & Greve, K. W. (2013). Cognitive performance validity assessment in mild traumatic brain injury, physical pain, and posttraumatic stress. In D. S. Carone & S. S. Bush (Eds.), Mild traumatic brain injury: System validity assessment and malingering (pp. 323–346). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, K. J., Greve, K. W., & Glynn, G. (2005). On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: Lessons from cognitive malingering research. The Spine Journal, 5(4), 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.11.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J., Williams, C., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Kaemmer, B. (2006). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) (revised manual version). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.

  • Drogin, E. Y. (2020). Forensic mental telehealth assessment (FMTA) in the context of COVID-19. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 71. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252720300546?via%3Dihub.

  • Fokas, K. F., & Brovko, J. M. (2020). Assessing symptom validity in psychological injury evaluations using the MMPI-2-RF and the PAI: An updated review. Psychological Injury and Law, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09393-8.

  • Foote, W., E., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Young, G. (2020). Civil forensic evaluation in psychological injury and law: Legal, professional, and ethical considerations. Psychological Injury and Law, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09398-3.

  • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. (1996). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html.

  • Kerig, P. K., Mozley, M. M., & Mendez, L. (2020). Forensic assessment of PTSD via DSM-5 versus ICD-11 criteria: Implications for practice and future research. Psychological Injury and Law, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09397-4.

  • Kohutis, E. A., & McCall, S. (2020). The eggshell and crumbling skull plaintiff: Psychological and legal considerations for assessment. Psychological Injury and Law, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09392-9.

  • Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Meyers, J. E. (2009). 40 plus or minus 10, a new magical number: Reply to Russell. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 841–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mailis, A., Tepperman, P. S., & Hapidou, E. G. (2020). Chronic pain: Evolution of clinical definitions and implications for practice. Psychological Injury and Law, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09391-w.

  • Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality assessment inventory: professional manual (2nd ed.). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources (Original manual published in 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Resick, P. A., Bovin, M. J., Calloway, A. L., Dick, A. M., King, M. W., Mitchell, K. S., Suvak, M. K., Wells, S. Y., Stirman, S. W., & Wolf, E. J. (2012). A critical evaluation of the complex PTSD literature: Implications for DSM-5. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, E. M. S., Slick, D. S., & Iverson, G. L. (2020). Multidimensional malingering criteria for neuropsychological assessment: A 20-year update of the malingered neuropsychological dysfunction criteria. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(6), 735–764. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaa019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Silverberg, N. D., Iverson, G. L., & on behalf of the ACRM Mild TBI Definition Expert Consensus Group, ACRM Brain Injury Special Interest Group Mild TBI Task Force. (2020). Expert panel survey to update the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine definition of mild traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.08.022.

  • Slick, D. J., Sherman, E. M. S., & Iverson, G. L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1076/1385-4046(199911)13:04;1-Y;FT545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. P., & Burger, G. K. (1997). Detection of malingering: Validation of the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 180–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). TOMM: The test of memory malingering manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Kolk, B. A., Pynoos, R. S., Cicchetti, D., Cloitre, M., D’Andrea, W., Ford, J. D., Lieberman, A., Putnam, F. W., Saxe, G., Spinazzola, J., Stolbach, B. C., & Teicher, M. (2009). Proposal to include a developmental trauma disorder diagnosis for children and adolescents in DSM-V. National Child Traumatic Stress Network Developmental Trauma Disorder Taskforce. Retrieved from https://www.cttntraumatraining.org/uploads/4/6/2/3/46231093/dsm-v_proposal-dtd_taskforce.pdf.

  • Viglione, D. J., Giromini, L., & Landis, P. (2017). The development of the inventory of problems–29: A brief self-administered measure for discriminating bona fide from feigned psychiatric and cognitive complaints. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 534–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1233882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2020). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.; ICD-11). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2008). Somatization, and medically unexplained symptoms in psychological injury: Diagnoses and dynamics. Psychological Injury and Law, 1(4), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-008-9021-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2014). Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury - implications for practice and court. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2015). Malingering in forensic disability-related assessments: Prevalence 15±15%. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9232-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2019). The cry for help in psychological injury and law: Concepts and review. Psychological Injury and Law, 12(3–4), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09360-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2020a). Thirty complexities and controversies in mild traumatic brain injury and persistent post-concussion syndrome: A roadmap for research and practice. Psychological Injury and Law, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09395-6.

  • Young, G. (2020b). Psychology, law, ethics, telehealth, and the global pandemic. In N. Rezaei, S. Hanaei, & A. Saghazadeh (Eds.), Integrated science of global epidemics (Vol 9, pp. XX). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G., Lareau, C., & Pierre, B. (2014). One quintillion ways to have PTSD comorbidity: Recommendations for the disordered DSM-5. Psychological Injury and Law, 7(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-014-9186-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald Young.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, G., Foote, W.E., Kerig, P.K. et al. Introducing Psychological Injury and Law. Psychol. Inj. and Law 13, 452–463 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09396-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09396-5

Keywords

Navigation