Advertisement

Current and Future Evidence in Personal Damage Evaluation

  • George Mendelson
  • Danuta Mendelson
Chapter

Abstract

The most widely used methods of impairment rating at the present time are the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment issued by the American Medical Association, developed from a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association during the period February 1958 to August 1970. This chapter will discuss concerns related to the evaluation of impairment associated with pain and with ‘mental and behavioral disorders’. However, before doing so the most important concerns related to the basic concepts and terminology used in this field of clinical medicine are discussed, namely the usage and meaning of terms such as “impairment”, “disability” and “handicap”. The chapter on the evaluation of impairment associated with “mental and behavioral disorders” in the 6th edition of the AMA Guides requires the use of three instruments, namely: (1) the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for the rating of symptoms; (2) the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) from DSM-IV for the rating of ‘psychological, social, and occupational functioning’—it should be noted that the GAF has been “dropped from DSM-5 for among others, its conceptual lack of clarity and questionable psychometrics in routine practice”;—and (3) the mis-named Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, which incorrectly includes “Travel” and ‘Employability’ as ratings of psychiatric impairment. The chapter will provide an overview of the Guide to the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impairment for Clinicians (GEPIC), developed in Victoria, Australia, which in our view is the only currently published instrument that rates psychiatric impairment without allowing the rating to be contaminated by what the WHO would consider as aspects of disability and/or handicap using the definitions set out in the ICIDH.

References

  1. 1.
    Mendelson G (1991) The rating of psychiatric impairment in forensic practice: a review. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 25(1):84–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colledge A, Krohm G (2003) Rating of impairments from injury impairment. IAIABC J 4:32–48Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lerner J (1966) Psychiatric disability and the industrial physician. J Occup Med 8:257–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyerson AT, Fine T (eds) (1987) Psychiatric disability: clinical, legal and administrative dimensions. American Psychiatric Press Inc, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lasky H (1983) The usable psychiatric report—workers’ compensation style. In: Chan R, Chan B (eds) Workers’ compensation psychiatric evaluation program syllabus. Southern California Psychiatric SocietyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleming JG (1992) The law of Torts, 8th edn. The Law Book Company, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yaron R (1966) The goring ox in near Eastern Law (1966). Isr Law Rev 1:396Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Honoré T (2003) “Justinian’s codification”. In: Hornblower S, Spawforth A (eds) The Oxford classical dictionary, 3rd edn—RevisedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zimmermann R (1996) The law of obligations. Clarendon Press, Oxford, Roman Foundations of the Civilian TraditionGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anon (1958) From guesswork to Guideline. JAMA 166(7):781Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luck JV Jr, Florence DW (1988) A brief history and comparative analysis of disability systems and impairment rating guides. Orthop Clin North Am 19(4):839–844PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mulvany P, Horner N (1998) The use and abuse of the American Medical Association guides in accident compensation schemes. J Law Med 6:136Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Loghlen M (1997) The American Medical Association’s ‘Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment’ in Australia. The standard and departure from the standard. Insur Law J 8:208Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pryor ES (1990) Flawed promises: a critical evaluation of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. Harvard Law Rev 103:964–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gloss DS, Wardle MG (1982) Reliability and validity of American Medical Association’s guide to ratings of permanent impairment. JAMA 248(18):2292–2296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Medical Association (1971) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    American Medical Association (1984) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 2nd ed. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    American Medical Association (1988) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 3rd edn. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American Medical Association (1993) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    American Medical Association (2000) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    American Medical Association (2008) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nussbaum K (1974) Psychiatric disability determination under social security in the United States. Psychiatr Q 48:65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spaulding WJ (1980) A look at the AMA Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment: problems in workers’ compensation claims involving mental disability. Behav Sci Law 8:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epstein M, Mendelson G, Strauss N (1997) Clinical guidelines to the rating of psychiatric impairment, published in the Victoria Government. Gazette S87:28 (August 1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Epstein M, Mendelson G, Strauss N (2005) The guide to the evaluation of psychiatric impairment for clinicians (GEPIC) published in the Victoria Government. Gazette G30:27 (27 Jul 2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spieler EA, Barth PS, Burton JF Jr, Himmelstein J, Rudolph L (2000) Recommendations to guide revision of the guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, American Medical Association. JAMA 283(4):519–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cocchiarella L, Turk MA, Andersson G (2000) Improving the evaluation of permanent impairment. JAMA 283(4):532–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Colledge A, Hunter B, Bunkall LD, Holmes EB (2009) Impairment rating ambiguity in the United States: the Utah impairment guides for calculating workers’ compensation impairments. J Korean Med Sci 24(Suppl 2):S232–S241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maxwell AE (1970) Basic statistics in behavioural research. Penguin Books, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Overall JE, Gorham DR (1962) Brief psychiatric rating scale. Psychol Rep 10:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Overall JE, Hollister LE, Pichot P (1967) Major psychiatric disorders: a four-dimensional model. Arch Gen Psychiatry 16:146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ventura J et al (1993) Brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) expanded version (4.0) scales, anchor points and administration manual. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 3:227Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Overall JE, Pfefferbaum B (1982) The Brief psychiatric rating scale for children. Psychopharmacol Bull 18(2):10–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Overall JE, Beller SA (1984) The Brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) in geropsychiatric research: I. Factor structure on an inpatient unit. J Gerontol 39(2):187–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beller SA, Overall JE (1984) The brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) in geropsychiatric research: II. Representative profile patterns. J Gerontol 39(2):194–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Silverstein ML, Mavrolefteros G, Close D (1997) BPRS syndrome scales during the course of an episode of psychiatric illness. J Clin Psychol 53(5):455–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hopko DR, Averill PM, Small D, Greenlee H, Varner RV (2001) Use of the brief psychiatric rating scale to facilitate differential diagnosis at acute inpatient admission. J Clin Psychiatry 62(4):304–312; quiz 313–314Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zanello A, Berthoud L, Ventura J, Merlo MC (2013) The brief psychiatric rating scale (version 4.0) factorial structure and its sensitivity in the treatment of outpatients with unipolar depression. Psychiatry Res 15;210(2):626–633Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. Arlington, VACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Davies GR (2008) The psychiatric impairment rating scale: is it a valid measure. Aust Psychol 43:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Davies GR (2013) The reliability of the psychiatric impairment scale (PIRS) in valuing psychological impairment. Psychiatry Psychol Law 20:700–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland (2013) The guidelines for the assessment of general damages in personal injury cases in Northern IrelandGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Robinson JP, Turk DC, Loeser JD (2004) Pain, impairment, and disability in the AMA guides. J Law Med Ethics 32(2):315–326, 191Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jang SH, Rah UW, Kim YC, Park YS, Jo D, Kim YC, Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (2009) Development of Korean Academy of medical sciences guideline-rating the impairment in pain. J Korean Med 24 Suppl 2:S330–S337Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Packard RC, Ham LP (1993) Impairment ratings for posttraumatic headache. Headache 33(7):359–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Biklen D (1988) The myth of clinical judgment. J Soc Issues 44:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Heiman EM, Shanfield SB (1978) Psychiatric disability assessment: clarification of problems. Compr Psychiatry 19(5):449–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Government of South Australia (2015) Return to work scheme—impairment assessment guidelines. AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cocchiarella L (2003) The art and science of the AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, 5th edn. J Workers Compensation 12(2):49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health SciencesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.School of Law, Faculty of Business and LawDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations