The neuropsychologist may be expected to arrive at conclusions about driving fitness based on results of the neuropsychological evaluation. Legal precedents suggest that there may be a duty to inform the patient, the patient’s family, and in some cases even relevant authorities if it is determined that the patient may not be capable of driving safely (Bracy et al., 1990). If the patient refuses to consent to the release of such information to authorities, a conflict between the ethical values of “confidentiality” and “duty to warn” may arise. The neuropsychologist should be familiar with the law governing this issue in his or her locality (Hope-well & van Zomeren, 1990).
KeywordsPhysical Medicine Brain Damage Neuropsychological Evaluation Strategic Level Relevant Authority
- Bracy, O. L., Engum, E. S., & Lambert, E. W. (1990). Manual for the Cognitive Behavioral Driver’s Inventory. Indianapolis: Psychological Software Services.Google Scholar
- Hopewell, C. A. (1988). Head injury rehabilitation: Adaptive driving after TBI. Houston: HDI Publishers.Google Scholar
- Hopewell C. A. & van Zomeren A. H. (1990). Neuropsychological aspects of motor vehicle operation. In D. E. Tupper & K. D. Cicerone (Eds.) The neuropsychology of everyday life: Assessment and competencies (pp. 307–334). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers Google Scholar
- Shore, D., Gurgold, G., & Robbins, S. (1980). Handicapped driving: Overview of assessment and training. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 65, 163–167.Google Scholar
- Stokx, L. C., & Gaillard, A. W. K. (1986). Task and driving performance of patients with a severe concussion of the brain. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psychology, 8, 421–436.Google Scholar