Psychological Injury in the States and Federal Workers’ Compensation Systems

  • Pamela A. Warren


There are two primary workers’ compensation (WC) systems in the United States. The first relates to the individual State WC systems. Each State has its own rules and laws related to WC. There is no standardization of WC systems from State to State. The second system pertains to the federal WC system. The federal WC system is governed by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). The federal WC system provides WC insurance for all federal employees, except railroad employees. Like the States, it has its own regulatory process related to its WC process.

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) applies to all railroad employees. It is important to note that FELA exempts railroad employees from State workers’ compensation statutes. Typically, States and federal employees covered under FECA are not able to sue their employers. FELA allows railroad employees to initiate a lawsuit in State or federal courts.

Both the States and federal WC systems are a type of employer-provided insurance to provide financial and medical benefits to employees who are injured in the workplace. Both systems provide wage replacement according to the specific rules and laws affiliated with the unique system. Each WC system is explored as they relate to BH workplace injuries.


  1. (85 O.S. Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Court, Rule 20) Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 24–26 (1994).Google Scholar
  2. §8105. Total disability and §8106. Partial disability. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC) – Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. Retrieved from htm#8105
  3. Aas, I. M. (2011). Guidelines for rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Annals of General Psychiatry, 10(1), 2. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Aas, I. M. (2014). Collecting information for rating global assessment of functioning (GAF): Sources of information and methods for information collection. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 10(4), 330–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2016). Library of Resources for Mental Health | Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. Retrieved from
  6. Akobeng, A. K. (2007). Understanding diagnostic tests 1: Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Paediatrica, 96(3), 338–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  8. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  9. American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). (2008). Occupational medicine practice guidelines: Evaluation and management of common health problems and functional recovery in workers (3rd ed.). Beverly Farms, MA: OEM Health Information Press.Google Scholar
  10. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aronoff, G. M., Mandel, S., Genovese, E., Maitz, E. A., Dorto, A. J., Klimek, E. H., et al. (2007). Evaluating malingering in contested injury or illness. Pain Practice, 7(2), 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bacon, S. F., Collins, M. J., & Plake, E. V. (2002). Does the Global Assessment of Functioning assess functioning? Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24, 202–212.Google Scholar
  13. Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 286–295. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Barsky, A. J. (2002). Forgetting, fabricating, and telescoping: The instability of medical history. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 981–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Barth, R. J. (2012). Determining injury-relatedness, work-relatedness, and claim-relatedness. AMA Guides Newsletter. Google Scholar
  16. Baumeister, H., Hutter, N., Bengel, J., & Härter, M. (2011). Quality of life in medically ill persons with comorbid mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 80(5), 275–286. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Baune, B. T., Caniato, R. N., Arolt, V., & Berger, K. (2009). The effects of dysthymic disorder on health-related quality of life and disability days in persons with comorbid medical conditions in the general population. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78(3), 161–166. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bender, M. (2016). Workers’ compensation index (12th ed.). CA: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  19. Brown v. W.T. Martin Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2013 VT 38 (June 21, 2013).Google Scholar
  20. Bruffaerts, R., Vilagut, G., Demyttenaere, K., Alonso, J., AlHamzawi, A., Andrade, L. H., et al. (2012). Role of common mental and physical disorders in partial disability around the world. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(6), 454–461. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Bruns, D., Mueller, K., & Warren, P. A. (2010). A review of evidence-based biopsychosocial laws governing the treatment of pain and injury. Psychological Injury and Law, 3(3), 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bruns, D., Mueller, K., & Warren, P. A. (2012). Biopsychosocial law, health care reform, and the control of medical inflation in Colorado. Rehabilitation Psychology, 57(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. City of Owensboro v. Adams, 135 S.W.3d. 446, 449-50 (Ky. 2004), (MCLE Mass Workers’ Comp, 2nd ed., Chap.14, 2010).Google Scholar
  24. Commonwealth v. Powell, 450 Mass. 229, 238 (2007).Google Scholar
  25. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509, U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  26. Department of Labor. (1995). Part 2 – Claims. Retrieved from FECA-PT2.pdf
  27. Department of Labor. (2007). Injury compensation for federal employees. Retrieved from
  28. Department of Labor. (2016). United States Department of Labor. Retrieved from
  29. Dersh, J., Polatin, P., Leeman, G., & Gatchel, R. (2005). Secondary gains and losses in the medicolegal setting. In I. Z. Schultz & R. J. Gatchel (Eds.), Handbook of complex occupational disability claims (pp. 421–443). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC). (n.d.). U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC) Federal employees’ compensation act. Retrieved from
  31. Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC) CA-11 When Injured at Work Information Guide for Federal Employees. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC) – Compliance – CA-11 When Injured at Work Information Guide for Federal Employees. Retrieved from
  32. Druss, B. G., Hwang, I., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A., Wang, P. S., & Kessler, R. C. (2008). Impairment in role functioning in mental and chronic medical disorders in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Molecular Psychiatry, 14(7), 728–737. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Druss, B. G., & Walker, E. R. (2011). Mental disorders and medical comorbidity (Research Synthesis Report 21). Retrieved from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation website:
  34. Elling, R. H. (1989). Workers’ health, safety, and compensation in historical and cross-national perspective: An overview. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 572, 240–255. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Escorpizo, R., & Stucki, G. (2013). Functioning and disability definitions. Encyclopedia of Pain, 1329–1335.
  36. Faust, D., Grimm, P. W., Ahern, D. C., & Sokolik, M. (2010). The admissibility of behavioral science evidence in the courtroom: The translation of legal to scientific concepts and back. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 49–77. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (2012). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (1908).Google Scholar
  39. First, M. B. (2010). Paradigm shifts and the development of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: Past experiences and future aspirations. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 692–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Flatten, M. (2013a). Disability can be easy street for federal bureaucrats (p. 3). Washington, DC: Washington Examiner.Google Scholar
  41. Flatten, M. (2013b). Experts say fraud rampant in federal worker disability program (p. 3). Washington, DC: Washington Examiner.Google Scholar
  42. Flatten, M. (2013c). Paralysis in congress keeps federal worker disability fraudsters cashing the checks (p. 3). Washington, DC: Washington Examiner.Google Scholar
  43. Furlan, A. D., Gnam, W. H., Carnide, N., Irvin, E., Amick, B. C., DeRango, K., et al. (2012). Systematic review of intervention practices for depression in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gatchel, R. J. (2013a). Disability assessment, psychological/ psychological evaluation. Encyclopedia of Pain, 993–995.
  45. Gatchel, R. J. (2013b). The biopsychosocial model of chronic pain. Chronic Pain, 5–17.
  46. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 1136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L Ed. 2d 508.Google Scholar
  47. Gholizadeh, S., Malcarne, V. L., & Schatman, M. E. (2015). Ethical quandaries for psychologists in workers’ compensation settings: The GAF gaffe. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(1), 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Giaimo v. Florida Autosport, Inc. 1D14-0077, 2014 WL 6679290 (Fla. 1st DCA, 11/26/14).Google Scholar
  49. Gili, M., Comas, A., García-García, M., Monzón, S., Antoni, S., & Roca, M. (2010). Comorbidity between common mental disorders and chronic somatic diseases in primary care patients. General Hospital Psychiatry, 32(3), 240–245. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grant, B. L., & Robbins, D. B. (2003). Disability and workers’ compensation. In Mental health and productivity in the workplace: A handbook for organizations and clinicians (pp. 347–368). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  52. Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Bieling, P. (2001). File review consultation in the adjudication of mental health and chronic pain disability claims. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(1), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hamm, R. M., Reiss, D. M., Paul, R. K., & Bursztajn, H. J. (2007). Knocking at the wrong door: Insured workers’ inadequate psychiatric care and workers’ compensation claims. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hamp, A., Stamm, K., Lin, L., & Christidis, P. (2016). 2015 APA survey of psychology health service providers. APA Center for Workforce Studies. Retrieved October 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  56. Harding, T. P. (2004). Psychiatric disability and clinical decision making: The impact of judgment error and bias. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 707–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hees, H. L., Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Koeter, M. W., Bultmann, U., & Schene, A. H. (2012). Towards a new definition of return to work outcomes in common mental disorders from a multi-stakeholder perspective. PLoS One, 7(6), e39947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Heilbrun, K., Grisso, T., & Goldstein, A. M. (2009). Foundations of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Henderson, J. A., Kysar, D. A., & Pearson, R. N. (2017). The torts process (9th ed.). Frederick, MD: Wolters, Kluwver, Aspen Casebook.Google Scholar
  60. Hinkka, K., Kuoppala, J., Väänänen-Tomppo, I., & Lamminpää, A. (2013). Psychosocial work factors and sick leave, occupational accident, and disability pension. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55(2), 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hofmann, B. (2016). Medicalization and overdiagnosis: Different but alike. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 19, 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Howard, C. (2002). Workers’ compensation: Federalism, and the heavy hand of history. Studies in American Political Development, 16(S), 28–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ireton v. Horizon Mental Health Mgmt., LLC, 2016 Tenn.Google Scholar
  64. Iverson, G. L. (2007). Identifying exaggeration and malingering. Pain Practice, 7(2), 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2010). Understanding barriers to evidence-based assessment: Clinician attitudes toward standardized assessment tools. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(6), 885–896. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2011). Understanding clinicians’ diagnostic practices: Attitudes toward the utility of diagnosis and standardized diagnostic tools. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(6), 476–485. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Kahn, J. P., & Langlieb, A. M. (2003). Mental health and productivity in the workplace: A handbook for organizations and clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  68. Kertay, L., Eskay-Auerbach, M., & Hyman, M. (2016). AMA guides to navigating disability benefit systems: Essentials for the health care professional. Chicago: American Medical Association.Google Scholar
  69. Kilgour, E., Kosny, A., Akkermans, A., & Collie, A. (2015). Procedural justice and the use of independent medical evaluations in workers’ compensation. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(2), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kosny, A., MacEachen, E., Ferrier, S., & Chambers, L. (2011). The role of health care providers in long term and complicated workers’ compensation claims. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(4), 582–590. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar
  72. Ladou, J. (2009). Federal employees’ compensation act. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 15(2), 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Larson, A., Larson, L. K., & Matthew Bender (Firm). (2016). Larson’s workers’ compensation law. New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  74. Laws, C., & Colon, D. (2012). Comorbidities in workers’ compensation. Available at
  75. Ma, H. (2014). Collecting information for rating global assessment of functioning (GAF) sources of information and methods for information collection. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 10(4), 330–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., Ferrier, S., & Chambers, L. (2010). The “toxic dose” of system problems: Why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Maffeo, P. A. (1990). Substantiating psychological injury under the federal employees’ compensation act. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 8(4), 435–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mallon, T. M., Grizzell, T., Holland, L., & Hodgson, M. (2015). Managing federal workers’ compensation injuries and costs. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, S12–S19. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Melhorn, J.M., Talmage, J.T., Hyman, M.H. (2011). AMA guides to the evaluation of work ability and return to work (2nd ed.). American Medical Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  80. Melhorn, J.M., Talmage, J.T., Ackerman, W.E., Hyman, M.H. (2013). AMA guides to disease and injury causation (2nd ed). American Medical Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  81. Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M., & Condit, D. C. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (Neuropsychology, Development and Cognition: Section A), 24(8), 1094–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Mortelmans, K. (2013). Return-to-work in sick-listed employees with major depressive disorder. TBV – TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR BEDRIJFS- EN VERZEKERINGSGENEESKUNDE, 21(8), 384–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Murphey, D., Barry, M., & Vaughn, B. (2013). Mental health disorders (1st ed. [ebook], pp. 1–6). Available at: Accessed 15 July 2017.
  84. Naglieri, J. (2009). Psychometric issues in the assessment of impairment. Assessing Impairment, 49–57.
  85. Nielsen, M., Madsen, I., Bultmann, U., Christensen, U., Diderichsen, F., & Rugulies, R. (2013). Encounters between workers sick-listed with common mental disorders and return-to-work stakeholders. Does workers’ gender matter? Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 41, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Parry, J. (2010). Civil mental disability law, evidence and testimony: A comprehensive reference manual for lawyers, judges and mental disability professionals. Chicago: American Bar Association, Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law.Google Scholar
  87. Parry, J., & Drogin, E. Y. (2007). Mental disability law, evidence, and testimony: A comprehensive reference manual for lawyers, judges, and mental disability professionals. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law.Google Scholar
  88. Pflanz, S. E., & Heidel, S. H. (2003). Psychiatric causes of workplace problems. In J. P. Kahn & A. M. Langlieb (Eds.), Mental health and productivity in the workplace: A handbook for organizations and clinicians (pp. 276–296). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  89. Preiss, K., Brennan, L., & Clarke, D. (2013). A systematic review of variables associated with the relationship between obesity and depression. Obesity Reviews, 14(11), 906–918. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Ramirez, A., Ekselius, L., & Ramklint, M. (2013). Axis IV – Psychosocial and environmental problems – In the DSM-IV. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing.
  91. Ranavaya, M. I., & Rondinelli, R. D. (2000). The major US disability and compensation systems: Origins and historical overview. In R. D. Rondinelli & R. T. Katz (Eds.), Impairment rating and disability evaluation (pp. 3–16). Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.Google Scholar
  92. Roca, M., Gili, M., Garcia-Garcia, M., Salva, J., Vives, M., Garcia Campayo, J., et al. (2009). Prevalence and comorbidity of common mental disorders in primary care. Journal of Affective Disorders, 119(1–3), 52–58. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal. Comp Cases 241. Labor Code Section 3208.3.Google Scholar
  94. Ropponen, A., Svedberg, P., Huunan-Seppala, A., Koskenvuo, K., Koskenvuo, M., Alexanderson, K., et al. (2012). Personality traits and life dissatisfaction as risk factors for disability pension due to low back diagnoses: A 30-year longitudinal cohort study of Finnish twins. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 73(4), 29–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Samuelsson, A., Ropponen, A., Alexanderson, K., & Svedberg, P. (2013a). A prospective cohort study of disability pension due to mental diagnoses: The importance of health factors and behaviors. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 621. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Samuelsson, A., Ropponen, A., Alexanderson, K., & Svedberg, P. (2013b). Psychosocial working conditions, occupational groups, and risk of disability pension due to mental diagnoses: A cohort study of 43,000 Swedish twins. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, 39(4), 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schultz, I. Z. (2008). Disentangling the disability quagmire in psychological injury: Part 1–disability and return to work: Theories, methods, and applications. Psychological Injury and Law, 1, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schultz, I. Z. (2009). Determining disability: New advances in conceptualization and research. Psychological Injury and Law, 2(3–4), 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schultz, I. Z., & Gatchel, R. J. (2015). Handbook of return to work: From research to practice. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  100. Sengupta, I., Reno, V. P., Burton, J. F., Jr., & Baldwin, M. L. (2012). Workers’ compensation: Benefits, coverage, and costs, 2010. National Academy of Social Insurance, August 2012. Available at SSRN:
  101. Shaw, L. (2016). Working with stakeholders in return to work processes: Multisystem interactions. Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability, 327–336.
  102. Spengler, P. M., White, M. J., Egisdottir, S., Maugherman, A. S., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., et al. (2009). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Effects of experience on judgment accuracy. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(3), 350–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stejskal, W. J. (2013). Psychological testing in workplace disability evaluations. In L. H. Gold & D. L. Vanderpool (Eds.), Clinical guide to mental disability evaluations (pp. 127–154). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stolper, E., Van de Wiel, M., Van Royen, P., Van Bokhoven, M., Van der Weijden, T., & Dinant, G. J. (2011). Gut feelings as a third track in general practitioners’ diagnostic reasoning. Journal of General Medicine, 26(2), 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Talmage, J. B. (2007). Failure to communicate: How terminology and forms confuse the work ability/disability evaluation process. Journal of Insurance Medicine, 39, 192–198.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. Tanabe, R. P. (2013). Workers’ compensation laws: As of January 2013. Cambridge, MA: Workers Compensation Research Institute. International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions &Workers Compensation Research Institute.Google Scholar
  107. U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC) Compliance – Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from fecafact.htm
  108. U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) – FECA. (n.d.). Retrieved from
  109. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Modernizing federal disability policy (GAO-07-934SP). Retrieved from U.S. Govt. Accountability Office website: GAO-07-934SP
  110. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Federal employees’ compensation act: Analysis of proposed changes on USPS beneficiaries (GAO-13-142R). Retrieved from
  111. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014a). Enhanced policies and management focus needed to address potential physician-assisted fraud (GAO-15-19). Retrieved from /666830.pdf
  112. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014b). Railroad retirement board: Total and permanent disability program at risk for improper payments.Google Scholar
  113. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014c). Retirement security: Oversight of the national railroad retirement investment trust. (GAO-14-312). Retrieved from
  114. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015a). Railroad retirement board: Actions needed to reduce continued risk of fraud and improper payments (GAO-15-535T). Retrieved from http://www.gao. gov/products/GAO-15-535T
  115. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015b). A framework for managing fraud risks in federal programs (GAO-15-593SP). Retrieved from United States Government Accountability Office website:
  116. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015c). Disability insurance: Preliminary observations on overpayments and beneficiary work reporting (GAO-15-673T). Retrieved from http://www.gao. gov/products/GAO-15-673T
  117. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016). 2016 annual report: Additional opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication and achieve other financial benefits (GAO-16-375SP). Retrieved from e-report
  118. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2018) Railroad retirement board: Actions needed to improve the effectiveness and oversite of continuing disability reviews. (GAO-18-287). Retrieved from
  119. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. (2004). General conditions under which a person is entitled to a railroad retirement employee annuity. Form G-177.
  120. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. (2009). Employee disability benefits. Form RB-1d.
  121. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. (2015). How works affects your disability annuity. Form AB-31 (12-15).
  122. Vatnaland, T., Vatnaland, J., Friis, S., & Opjordsmoen, S. (2007). Are GAF scores reliable in routine clinical use? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 115(4), 326–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wakefield, J. C. (2010). Misdiagnosing normality: Psychiatry’s failure to address the problem of false positive diagnoses of mental disorder in a changing professional environment. Journal of Mental Health, 19(4), 337–351. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Walker, E. R., McGee, R. E., & Druss, B. G. (2015). Mortality in mental disorders and global disease burden implications. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(4), 334. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  125. Wang, P. S., Sergio, A., AlHamzawi, A. O., Alonso, J., Andrade, L. H., Angermeyer, M. C., et al. (2010). Treated and untreated prevalence of mental disorders: Results from the World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) surveys. In: Oxford textbook of community mental health. doi: Scholar
  126. Warren, P. A. (2005). The management of workplace mental health issues and appropriate disability prevention strategies. Encinitas, CA: Work Loss Data Institute.Google Scholar
  127. Warren, P. A. (2010). Behavioral health disability: Innovations in prevention and management. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  128. Warren, P. A. (2013a). Those who hesitate are lost: The case for setting behavioral health treatment and disability standards, part I. Psychological Injury and Law, 6(3), 183–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Warren, P. A. (2013b). Those who hesitate are lost: The case for setting behavioral health treatment and disability standards, part II. Psychological Injury and Law, 6(3), 196–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Warren, P. A. (2013c). Those who hesitate are lost: The case for setting behavioral health treatment and disability standards, part III. Psychological Injury and Law, 6(3), 208–214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Warren, P. A. (2016). The usage of the AMA Guides for the determination of psychological injury within the state and federal workers’ compensation systems. Psychological Injury and Law, 9(4), 313–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Warren, P. A. (2017). Imprecision in the evaluation of workers’ compensation psychological injury claims. AMA Guides Newsletter, May/June, 4–12 and 16.Google Scholar
  133. Wickizer, T., Franklin, G., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Gluck, J., Mootz, R., Smith-Weller, T., et al. (2011). Improving quality, preventing disability and reducing costs in workers’ compensation healthcare: A population-based intervention study. Medical Care, 49(12), 1105–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Young, G., Kane, A. W., Nicholson, K., & Shuman, D. W. (2007). Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pamela A. Warren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryCarle Physician Group and University of Illinois Medical SchoolMonticelloUSA

Personalised recommendations