Abstract
In-depth consideration of causality is central to the determination of responsibility in tort actions. If causality and responsibility are not immediately evident, and if psychological factors play a potentially significant role in the plaintiff’s disability, the case may be set for trial. Adequately demonstrating the presence or absence of causality in depositions and in court requires that a psychologist (or other mental health professional) be retained as an expert to do a comprehensive assessment that will provide the court with sufficient information to assist with the determination of liability. That information must be valid, must be obtained using legitimate methods, and must present the information in a manner of value to the trier of fact (judge or jury). The psychologist must be well-acquainted with the requirements of the court, and the attorneys and judge must be sufficiently familiar with psychological concepts, in order for the members of the mental health and legal professions to meaningfully interact. This chapter and the three that follow will address these issues from the perspectives of both the psychologist and the court.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ackerman, M. J., & Kane, A. W. (1998). Psychological experts in personal injury actions (3rd ed.). New York: Aspen Law and Business.
Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence. (2000). Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules. Washington, DC: Judicial Conference of the United States. Retrieved July 26, 2006 from http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title28a/28a_5_7_.html.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Antoine-Tubbs v. Local 513 Air Transp. Div., 50 F. Supp. 2d 601 (N.D. Tex. 1998).
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).
Bernstein, D. E., & Jackson, J. D. (2004). The Daubert trilogy in the states. Jurimetrics, 44. Retrieved April 6, 2004, from Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper collection, http://ssrn.com/abstract=498786.
Bradford, G. E. (2001). Dissecting Missouri’s requirement of “reasonable medical certainty.” Journal of the Missouri Bar, 57. (January 1, 2004); retrieved August 12, 2004, from www.mobar.org.
Brickley, P. (2003). Science v. law. Scientific American, 289, 30–31.
Brown, J. J. (ed.) (1999). Scientific evidence and experts handbook. New York: Aspen Law and Business.
Brown, J. J., & Eder, E. (1999). The standards of admissibility of scientific and technical evidence. In J. J. Brown (Ed.), Scientific evidence and experts handbook (pp. 1–42). New York: Aspen Law & Business.
Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2005).
Call, J. A. (2003). Liability for psychological injury: Yesterday and today. In I. Z. Schultz & D. O. Brady (Eds.), Psychological injuries at trial (pp. 40–64). Chicago: American Bar Association.
Cocchiarella, L., & Andersson, G. B. J. (2001). Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment 5th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association.
Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, 259 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2001).
Dahir, V. B., Richardson, J. F., Ginsburg, G. P., Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., & Merlino, M. L. (2005). Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11, 62–82.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (1995).
Daubertontheweb.com, Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://www.daubertontheweb.com/.
Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2002). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 251–308.
Eder, E. (2007). The standards of admissibility of scientific and technical evidence. In J. J. Brown (Ed.), Scientific evidence and experts handbook (2007 cumulative supplement). New York: Aspen Law and Business. Retrieved November 9, 2006 from Loislaw.com.
Faigman, D. L. (2000). The gatekeepers: Scientific expert testimony in the trial process. The Trial Lawyer, 23, 335–346.
Faigman, D. L., & Monahan, J. (2005). Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law’s scientific age. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 631–659.
Faust, D. (2003). Holistic thinking is not the whole story: Alternative or adjunct approaches for increasing the accuracy of legal evaluations. Assessment, 10, 428–441.
Faust, D., & Heard, K. V. (2003). Objectifying subjective injury claims. In I. Z. Schulze & D. O. Brady (Eds.), Psychological injuries at trial (pp. 1686–1705). Chicago: American Bar Association.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, retrieved July 18, 2004, from www.loislaw.com.
Federal Rules of Evidence (2004). Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://judiciary. house. gov/media/pdfs/printers/108th/evid2004.pdf.
Fleishman, W., Jackson, J. R., & Rothschild, M. (1999). Defensive litigation strategy in scientific evidence cases. In J. J. Brown (Ed.), Scientific evidence and experts handbook (pp. 305–385). New York: Aspen Law and Business.
Frueh, B. C., Elhai, J. D., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2004). Unresolved issues in the assessment of trauma exposure and posttraumatic reactions. In G. M. Rosen (Ed.), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Issues and controversies. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 34 ALR 145 (D. C. Cir. 1923).
Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 433–458.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997).
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, 411–419.
Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating Competencies (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Gutheil, T. G., & Bursztajn, H. (2003). Avoiding ipse dixit mislabeling: Post-Daubert approaches to expert clinical opinions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 205–210.
Gutheil, T. G., & Bursztajn, H. (2005). Attorney abuses of Daubert hearings: Junk science, junk law, or just plain obstruction? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 33, 150–152.
Haney, C., & Smith, A. (2003). Science, law, and psychological injury: The Daubert standards and beyond. In I. Z. Schulze & D. O. Brady (Eds.), Psychological injuries at trial (pp. 184–201). Chicago: American Bar Association.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993).
Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Imwinkelried, E. J. (2000). Evaluating the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony: A partial answer to the questions left unresolved by Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. Maine Law Review, 52, 20–41.
Johnson, M. T., Krafka, C., & Cecil, J. S. (2000). Expert testimony in federal civil trials, a preliminary analysis. Retrieved May 2, 2004, from the Federal Judicial Center, http://www.fjc.gov/newweb/jnetweb.nsf/autoframe?openform&url_r=pages/556&url_1=index.
Kirkpatrick, L. C., & Mueller, C. B. (2003). Evidence: Practice under the rules. New York: Aspen Law and Business.
Koch, W. J., Douglas, K. S., Nicholls, T. L. & O’Neill, M. L. (2006). Psychological injuries: Forensic assessment, treatment, and law. Oxford: Oxford.
Krafka, C., Dunn, M. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., & Miletich, D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 309–332.
Kraus, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2003). Forensic psychology, public policy, and the law. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) & A. M. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11, Forensic psychology (pp. 543–560). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).
Lees-Haley, P. and Brown, R. S. (1993). Neuropsychological complaint base rates of 170 personal injury claimants. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8, 203–209.
Macartney-Filgate, M. S., & Snow, G. W. (2004). The practitioner as expert witness. In D. R. Evans (Ed.), The law, standards, and ethics in the practice of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–309). Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications.
McLearen, A. M., Pietz, C. A., & Denney, R. L. (2004). Evaluation of psychological damages. In W. T. O’Donohue & E. R. Levensky (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 267–299). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (1996). Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/.
Moran, M. (2003). Trauma-response strategies still missing in action. Psychiatric News, 38, 42.
Moreau, C., & Zisook, S. (2002) Rationale for a posttraumatic stress spectrum disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25, 775–790.
National Academy of Sciences (2002). The age of expert testimony: Science in the courtroom, report of a workshop. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 22, 2004, from http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309083109/html/.
National Center for Health Statistics, Retrieved October 13, 2005, from www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract.icd9/abticd10.htm
Parry, J. W. (2000). Admissibility of expert evidence. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 24, 10.
Parry, J. W. (2004). Expert evidence and testimony: Daubert versus Frye. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 28, 136–140.
Peters, L., Slade, T., & Andrews, G. (1999). A comparison of ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 335–343.
R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, 1994 CanLII 80 (S.C.C.).
Risinger, D. M., Saks, M. J., Thompson, W. C., & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90, 1–56.
Saks, M. J. (2000). The aftermath of Daubert: An evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence. Jurimetrics, 40, 229–241.
Sales, B. D., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Experts in court: Reconciling law, science, and professional knowledge. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sella, G. (1997). Causation. Forensic Examiner, 32, 32.
Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc., 104 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 1997).
Shuman, D. W. (1994a). Psychiatric and psychological evidence (2nd ed.). Deerfield, IL: Clark, Boardman, Callaghan. (Supplemented 2002, 2003, 2004).
Shuman, D. W. (1994b). The psychology of compensation in tort law. Kansas Law Review, 43. Retrieved April 6, 2003, from www.lexis.com.
Shuman, D. W. (2001). Expertise in law, medicine and health care. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26, 267–290.
Shuman, D. W. (2002a). Retrospective assessment of mental states and the law. In R. I. Simon & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Retrospective assessment of mental states in litigation (pp. 21–45). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric.
Shuman, D. W. (2002b). Softened science in the courtroom: Forensic implications of a value-laden classification. In J. Z. Sadler (Ed.), Descriptions and prescriptions (pp. 217–228). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shuman, D. W., & Daley, C. E. (1996). Compensation for mental and emotional distress. In D. B. Sales & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Law, mental health, and mental disorder. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Shuman, D. W., & Sales, B. D. (1999). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 3–15.
Shuman, D. W., & Sales, B. D. (2001). Daubert’s wager. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 69–77.
Slovenko, R. (2002). From Frye to Daubert and beyond. In R. Slovenko, Psychiatry in law (pp. 43–64). New York: Routledge.
State Justice Institute. (1999). The bench: Companion to a judge’s deskbook on the basic philosophies and methods of science. Retrieved November 6, 2004, from www.unr.edu/bench/.
Urbina, A. (2004). Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Author.
Wettstein, R. M. (2005). Quality and quality improvement in forensic mental health evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 33, 158–175.
Wilson, J. P. (2004). PTSD and complex PTSD. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (2nd ed., pp. 7–44). New York: Guilford Press.
Wilson, J. P., & Moran, T. A. (2004). Forensic/clinical assessment of psychological trauma and PTSD in legal settings. In J. P. Wilson, & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (2nd ed., pp. 603–636). New York: Guilford Press.
World Health Organization. (1992). International classification of diseases, injuries, and causes of death, 10th edition (ICD-10). Geneva: Author.
Youngstrom, E. A., & Busch, C. P. (2000) Expert testimony in psychology: Ramifications of Supreme Court decision in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael. Ethics & Behavior, 10, 185–193.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kane, A.W. (2007). Basic Concepts in Psychology and Law. In: Causality of Psychological Injury. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36445-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36445-2_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-36435-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-36445-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)