Advertisement

Personal Injury and Disability

Chapter

Abstract

Forensic mental health evaluations in personal injury and disability cases require an assessment of changes in the examinee’s functioning over time. This task requires the incorporation of multiple sources of data to obtain an accurate picture of the examinee. Social networking site (SNS) data, as a form of collateral data, may be useful in providing information about the examinee’s functioning over time and may help to corroborate or disconfirm aspects of the examinee’s self-report. SNS data, however, is subject to certain limitations and vulnerabilities, including issues with authenticity, context, representativeness, and relevance. These challenges are considered within the legal contours of civil litigation. The chapter concludes with recommendations for the effective use of social media data in personal injury and disability cases.

Keywords

Disability Personal injury Civil litigation Psychological injury 

References

  1. American Psychological Association (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.
  2. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
  3. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-2-restructured form): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, K. R. (2012). The risks of taking Facebook at face value: Why the psychology of social networking should influence the evidentiary relevance of Facebook photographs. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law., 14(2), 357–393.Google Scholar
  5. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). The Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coffey, C. A., Batastini, A. B., & Vitacco, M. J. (2018). Clues from the digital world: A survey of clinicians’ reliance on social media as collateral data in forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(5-6), 345–354.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000206.
  7. E.E.O.C. v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430, 432 (S.D. Ind. 2010).Google Scholar
  8. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2018). Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Publishing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Frederick, R. I. (1997). Validity Indicator Profile manual. Minnetonka, MN: NCS Assessments.Google Scholar
  10. Greiffenstein, M. F., Baker, W. J., & Johnson-Greene, D. (2002). Actual versus self-reported scholastic achievement of litigating postconcussion and severe closed head injury claimants. Psychological Assessment., 14(2), 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heilbrun, K., Warren, J., & Picarello, K. (2003). Third party information in forensic assessment. In I. B. Weiner (series Ed.) & a. M. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 69–86). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Koch, W. J., Douglas, K. S., Nicholls, T. L., & O’Neill, M. L. (2006). Psychological injuries: Forensic assessment, treatment, and law. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Lees-Haley, P. R., Williams, C. W., Zasler, N. D., Marguilies, S., English, L. T., & Stevens, K. B. (1997). Response bias in plaintiffs’ histories. Brain Injury, 11(11), 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McPeak, A. A. (2013). The Facebook digital footprint: Paving fair and consistent pathways to civil discovery of social media data. Wake Forest Law Review, 48, 56.Google Scholar
  15. McPeak, A. (2016). Social data discovery and proportional privacy. Cleveland State Law Review, 65, 17.Google Scholar
  16. Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  17. Pirelli, G., Hartigan, S., & Zapf, P. A. (2018). Using the internet for collateral information in forensic mental health evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(2), 157–169.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pirelli, G., Otto, R. K., & Estoup, A. (2016). Using internet and social media data as collateral sources of information in forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(1), 12–17.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogers, R., & Payne, J. (2006). Damages and rewards: Assessment of malingered disorders in compensation cases. In Behavioral sciences and the law, 24 (pp. 645–658).Google Scholar
  20. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Gillard, N. D. (2010). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, 2nd edition (SIRS-2). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  21. Romano v. Steelcase, Inc. 907 N.Y.S.2d 650, 653–54 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (2010).Google Scholar
  22. Tombaugh, T. M. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Williams, C. W., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Djanogly, S. E. (1999). Clinical scrutiny of litigants’ self- reports. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(4), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent PracticeAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations