Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T04:41:55.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

35 - Evaluation Decisions by Psychologists about Causation and Damages in Personal Injury and Employment Discrimination Cases

A Pragmatic Five-Stage Model for Courts

from Part V - Other Legal Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

Psychologists are often called in personal injury and workplace discrimination cases to help determine the extent of psychological damages (e.g., psychological trauma). We apply a rigorous five-stage temporal model to guide forensic evaluators in providing a robust, evidence-based psychological perspective on the nature and extent of the injury, how that injury arose, and the effects of that injury in the future. Functionality of the plaintiff is assessed in daily activities, in the workplace, in intimate relationships, in social and recreational activities, and in relation to their family. Systematic analysis of the functioning of the plaintiff in these areas from the period before the legally relevant event until litigation concludes allows decisions to be made about the nature and source of any impairments. This method includes consideration of alternative hypotheses, integral to decisions about causation. Psychologists’ decisions thus affect outcomes for injured parties. Future research and practice implications are discussed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beltrani, A., Reed, A. L., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. K. O. (2018). Is hindsight really 20/20? The impact of outcome information on decision making. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 17(3), 285296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1505790.Google Scholar
Brady, K. T., Back, S. E., & Coffey, S. F. (2004). Substance abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5), 206209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00309.x.Google Scholar
Brown, L. B. (2020). Complex trauma and the question of reasonableness of response in sexual harassment cases: Issues for treatment providers and forensic evaluators. Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 155166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09378-7.Google Scholar
Bucich, M., Steel, Z., & Berle, D. (2022). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom profiles among people who have experienced abuse: Findings from the NESARC-III study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001193.Google Scholar
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, 370382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09393-8.Google Scholar
Foote, W. E. (2007). Psychological evaluation and testimony in cases of clergy and teacher sex abuse. In Goldstein, A. M. (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Advanced topics for forensic mental experts & attorneys (pp. 571604). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Foote, W. E. (2020). Trauma assessment in personal injury and employment discrimination cases. In Rafael, A. J., Owen, E., & Maddox, J. (Eds.), Trauma and its vicissitudes in forensic contexts: An introduction (pp. 297324). Springer.Google Scholar
Foote, W. E., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2021). Understanding sexual harassment: Evidence-based forensic practice. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Foote, W. E., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Young, C. (2021). Civil forensic evaluation: Professional and ethical considerations in litigation related assessment. Psychological Injury and Law, 13(4), 327353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09398-3.Google Scholar
Foote, W. E., & Lareau, C. R. (2013). Psychological evaluation of emotional damages in tort cases. In Otto, R. K. & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology Vol. 1: Forensic psychology (pp. 172200). John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Greenberg, S. A., Otto, R. K., & Long, A. C. (2003). The utility of psychological testing in assessing emotional damages in personal injury litigation. Assessment, 10(4), 411419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103259532.Google Scholar
Gutheil, T. G., Bursztajn, H., Brodsky, A., & Strasburger, L. H. (2000). Preventing “critogenic” harms: Minimizing emotional injury from civil litigation. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 28(1), 518. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318530002800102.Google Scholar
Hagenaars, M. (2016). Tonic immobility and PTSD in a large community sample. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 7(2), 246260. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.051915.Google Scholar
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 874888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020070.Google Scholar
Kessler, R. C., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., Alonso, J., et al. (2017). Trauma and PTSD in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8 (Suppl. 5), 1353383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1353383.Google Scholar
Liebman, R. E., Van Buren, B., & Grasso, D. (2022). Assessment and clinical decision-making with adult survivors of interpersonal violence. In Geffner, R., White, J. W., Hamberger, L. K., et al. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal violence and abuse across the lifespan (pp. 43514382). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_175-1.Google Scholar
Lucassen, N., de Haan, A. D., Helmerhorst, K. O. W., & Keizer, R. (2021). Interrelated changes in parental stress, parenting, and coparenting across the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Psychology. https://doi-org.libproxy.unm.edu/10.1037/fam0000908.supp (Supplemental).Google Scholar
Marino, V. R., Badana, A. N. S., & Haley, W. E. (2020). Care demands and well-being of primary and secondary non-spousal caregivers of aging adults. Clinical Gerontologist: The Journal of Aging and Mental Health, 43(5), 558571. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2020.1759748.Google Scholar
McCaslin, S. E., Cloitre, M., Neylan, T. C., et al. (2019). Factors associated with high functioning despite distress in post-9/11 veterans. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(3), 377382. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000271.Google Scholar
Messman, B. A., Rafiuddin, H. S., Slavish, D. C., Weiss, N. H., & Contractor, A. A. (2022). Examination of daily-level associations between posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and COVID-19 worries. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 14(3), 497506. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001170.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 99120. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000482.Google Scholar
Pietrzak, R. H., Feder, A., Singh, R., et al. (2014). Trajectories of PTSD risk and resilience in World Trade Center responders: An 8-year prospective cohort study. Psychological Medicine, 44(1), 205219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713000597.Google Scholar
Renka, C. (2007). The presumed eggshell plaintiff rule: Determining liability when mental harm accompanies physical injury. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 29, 289311.Google Scholar
Rodriguez v Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., 12 Cal.3d 382, 115 Cal. Rptr. 765, 525 P.2d 669 (1974). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/12/382.html.Google Scholar
Schiewe, M. (2019). Tonic immobility: The fear-freeze response as a forgotten factor in sexual assault laws. DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and Law, 8, 128.Google Scholar
Simon, D., Ahn, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2020). The adversarial mindset. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(3), 353377. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000226.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. P., & Moran, T. A. (2004). Forensic/clinical assessment of psychological trauma and PTSD in legal settings. In Wilson, J. P. & Keane, T. M. (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (pp. 603636). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×