Advertisement

Psychological Injury and Law

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 21–30 | Cite as

Ethical, Legal and Risk Management Considerations in the Neuropsychological Assessment of Veterans

  • Arthur C. Russo
Article

Abstract

This article examines the ethical and regulatory issues facing neuropsychologists practicing within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system, either as Veteran Health Administration neuropsychologists or as consultants. The focus is proactive, with an emphasis on preparation consistent with a positive approach to ethical practice and risk management. Given the sheer magnitude of applicable Federal regulations and guidelines, the scope is limited to an overview of select ethical complexities involved in the professional practice of neuropsychology with veterans within VA settings. The article uses a top-down structure, with each section (a) identifying the relevant core biomedical ethical principles, followed by (b) an elaboration of the relevant ethical requirements as defined by the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics, and (c) applicable Federal regulations. Suggestions for translating core ethical principles and relevant ethical requirements into pragmatic action consistent with Federal regulation follow. Topics include (a) establishing professional competence, (b) understanding the type of assessment, (c) understanding consent requirements, and (d) understanding the ethical and regulatory issues in assessing veteran symptom presentation.

Keywords

Ethics Veterans Neuropsychological Assessment Evaluation 

References

  1. 5 CFR § 2635.101Google Scholar
  2. 5 CFR § 2635.704Google Scholar
  3. 38 CFR 3.159Google Scholar
  4. 38 CFR § 1.201Google Scholar
  5. 38 CFR § 1.576Google Scholar
  6. 38 CFR § 3.326Google Scholar
  7. 38 CFR § 3.901Google Scholar
  8. 18 USC § 371 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 18 USC § 1001 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 18 USC § 1035 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 38 U.S.C. § 3.655 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 38 U.S.C. § 7402 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 44 U.S.C. § 3301 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (2003). Official position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology on ethical complaints made against clinical neuropsychologists during adversarial proceedings. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17(4), 443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN). (2007). Practice guidelines for neuropsychological assessment and consultation. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21(2), 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.Google Scholar
  18. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, D.C.: Author. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2012.
  19. Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bennet, B., Bryant, B., VandenBos, G. & Greenwood, A. (1990). Professional liability and risk management. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bush, S. & NAN Policy & Planning Committee (2005). Independent and court-ordered forensic neuropsychological examinations: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 997–1007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bush, S. S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., et al (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity. Official position of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(4), 419–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bush, S., Russo, A. & Cuesta, G. (2012). Ethical considerations in the neuropsychological evaluation and treatment of veterans. In S. Bush (Ed.), Neuropsychological practice with veterans (pp. 333–356). New York: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  24. Carone, D., Iverson, G. & Bush, S. (2010). A model for approaching and providing feedback to patients regarding invalid test performance in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24, 759–778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chafetz, M. (2011). The psychological consultative examination for social security disability. Psychological Injury and Law, 4, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Congressional Budget Office. (2012). The Veterans Health Administrations treatment of PTSD and traumatic brain injury among recent combat veterans. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Cooper, D., Nelson, L., Armistead-Jehle, P. & Bowles, A. (2011). Utility of the Mild Brain Injury Symptoms Scale as a screening measure for symptom over-reporting in Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom service members with post-concussive complaints. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26, 718–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2002) How do I appeal a decision? VA Pamphlet 01-02-02A. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2006). Staffing: VA Handbook 5005. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  30. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2012). Department of Veterans Affairs strategic plan refresh: FY20112015. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the Inspector General (2010). Evaluation of physician credentialing and privileging in Veterans Health Administration facilities: VA Inspector General report No. 10-02381-185. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  32. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the Inspector General (2012). Audit of VA’s internal controls over the use of disability benefits questionnaires: VA Inspector General Report No. 11-00733-95. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  33. Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense. (2009). VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for management of concussion/mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense. (2010). VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for management of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Durant, W. (1926). The story of philosophy: The lives and opinions of the world's greatest philosophers. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  36. Frueh, B., Grubaugh, A., Elhai, J. & Buckley, T. (2007). US Department of Veterans Affairs disability policies for posttraumatic stress disorder: administrative trends and implications for treatment, rehabilitation, and research. American Journal of Public Health, 97(12), 2143–2145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heilbronner, R., Sweet, J., Morgan, J., Larrabee, G., Millis, S. & Participants, C. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1093–1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. House Committee on Veterans Affairs. (2012). Reclaiming the process: Examining the VBA claims transformation plan as a means to effectively serve our veteran: Hearings before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. 112th Congress (June 19, 2012) (testimony of Linda A. Halliday).Google Scholar
  39. Iverson, G. (2006). Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(2), 77–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jackson, J., Sinnott, P., Marx, B., Murdoch, M., Sayer, N., Alverez, J., et al (2011). Variation in practices and attitudes of clinicians assessing PTSD-related disability among veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(5), 609–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson-Greene, D. & NAN Policy & Planning Committee (2005). Informed consent in clinical neuropsychology practice: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 335–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kilpatrick, D., Best, C., Smith, D., Kudler, H. & Cornelison-Grant, V. (2011). Serving those who have served: Educational needs of health care providers working with military members, veterans, and their families. Charleston: Medical University of South Carolina Department of Psychiatry, National Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center.Google Scholar
  43. Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2006). Practical ethics for psychologists: A positive approach. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological AssociationGoogle Scholar
  44. Koocher, G. & Keith-Speigel, P. (1998). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  45. Marx, B. & Holowka, D. (2011). PTSD disability assessment. PTSD Research Quarterly, 22, 1–6.Google Scholar
  46. McGrath, J. (2002). Fraudulent claims of combat status in the VA? Psychiatric Times, 53(3), 345.Google Scholar
  47. Poyner, G. (2010). Psychological evaluations of veterans claiming PTSD disability with the Department of Veterans Affairs: A clinician’s viewpoint. Psychological Injury and Law, 3, 130–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ridgeway, J. (2011). Mind reading and the art of drafting medical questions in veterans benefits claims. Psychological Injury and Law, 4(3–4), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roemer, L., Litz, B. & Orsillo, S. (1997). Consistency of traumatic memories. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1628.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruff, R., Iverson, G., Barth, J., Bush, S. & Broshek, D. (2009). Recommendations for diagnosing a mild traumatic brain injury: A National Academy of Neuropsychology education paper. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Russo, A. (2012). Symptom validity test performance and consistency of self-reported memory functioning of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom Veterans with positive Veteran Health Administration comprehensive traumatic brain injury evaluations. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(8), 840–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Russo, A., Bush, S. & Rasin-Waters, D. (2012). Ethical considerations in the neuropsychological assessment of older adults. In L. D. Ravdin & H. L. Katzen (Eds.), Clinical handbook on the neuropsychology of aging and dementia. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  53. Schoenhard, W. (2010). Credentialing and privileging for compensation and pension memorandum. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  54. Veterans Benefits Administration (2002). Adjudication procedures manual rewrite: M21-1MR. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  55. Veterans Benefits Administration (2007). Clinicians guide: Compensation and pension. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  56. Veterans Health Administration (2006a). Certification of clinicians performing compensation and pension examinations: VHA Directive 2008:005. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  57. Veterans Health Administration (2006b). Health information management and health records handbook 1907–01. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  58. Veterans Health Administration (2006c). Compliance and business integrity (CBI) program: VHA Directive 1030. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  59. Veterans Health Administration (2008a). Consult policy: Directive 2008–056. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  60. Veterans Health Administration (2008b). Credentialing and privileging handbook 1100.19. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  61. Veterans Health Administration (2009). Informed consent for clinical treatments and procedures: VHA handbook 1004.01. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  62. Veterans Health Administration (2010). Introduction of disability benefit questionnaires (DBQs) to support the compensation and pension (C&P) process: VHA Directive 2010–045. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  63. Veterans Health Administration (2012). Analysis of VA health care utilization among Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  64. Veterans Health Initiative. (2002). Post-traumatic stress disorder: Implications for primary care. Independent study course. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  65. Veterans Health Initiative. (2010). Traumatic brain injury. Independent study course. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  66. Watson, P., McFall, M., McBrine, C., Schurr, P., Friedman, M., Keane, T. & Hamblin, J. (2002). Best practice manual for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compensation and pension examinations. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.Google Scholar
  67. Worthen, M. & Moering, R. (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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentVA New York Harbor Healthcare System Brooklyn CampusNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations