Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forensic Challenges in Medical Settings for Physicians and Neuropsychologists

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Physician's Field Guide to Neuropsychology

Abstract

Physicians may be asked to provide opinions on forensic issues affecting their patients which complicate the doctor-patient relationship. Physicians and neuropsychologists can work well together to address legal matters that arise during routine patient care or from attorney referrals once a matter becomes a legal dispute in civil or criminal court. Medical information from the physician and neuropsychological test data accurately interpreted by the neuropsychologist, along with a clear understanding of the legal issue being contested, can help the courts interpret medical and neurobehavioral science accurately. This chapter will provide a brief overview of the various civil and criminal legal proceedings that patients may face and how these legal matters can be addressed with collaboration between physicians and neuropsychologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, Slobogin C, Lyons PM Jr, Otto RK. Psychological evaluations for the courts: a handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Simon RI, Gold LH. Textbook of forensic psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Strasburger LH, Gutheil TG, Brodsky A. On wearing two hats: role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. Am J Psychiatry. 1997;154(4):448–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ganzini L, Volicer L, Nelson WA, Fox E, Derse AR. Ten myths about decision-making capacity. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2004;5(4):263–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. American Bar Association and American Psychological Association Assessment of Capacity in Older Adults Project Working Group. Assessment of older adults with diminished capacity: a handbook for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Bar Association and American Psychological Association; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Morgan J, Marcopulos BA. Capacity evaluations in the elderly: neuropsychological perspectives. In: Ravdin LD, Katzen HL, editors. Clinical handbook of the neuropsychology of aging and dementia. New York: Springer Science; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gurrera RJ, Moye J, Karel MJ, Azar AR, Armesto JC. Cognitive performance predicts treatment decisional abilities in mild to moderate dementia. Neurology. 2006;66:1367–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Demakis GJ. Civil capacities in clinical neuropsychology: research findings and practical applications. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shulman KI, Cohen CA, Hull I. Psychiatric issues in retrospective challenges of testamentary capacity. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;20:63–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shulman KI, Cohen CA, Kirsh FC, Hull IA, Champine JD. Assessment of testamentary capacity and vulnerability to undue influence. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:722–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Appelbaum PS. Assessment of patients competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2006;357:1834–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Marson DC, Cody HA, Ingram KK, Harrell LE. Neuropsychological predictors of competency in Alzheimer’s disease using a rational reasons legal standard. Arch Neurol. 1995;52:955–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Okonkwo OC, Griffith HR, Belue K, Lanza S, Zamrini EY, Harrell LE, Brockington JC, Clark D, Raman R, Marson DC. Cognitive models of medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2008;14:297–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Denney RL, Wynkoop TF. Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2000;15(2):804–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2795. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Krafka C, Dunn MA, Johnson MT, Cecil JS, Miletich D. Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2002;8(3):309–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grisso T. Evaluating competencies: forensic assessments and instruments. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Science; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ryba NL, Zapf PA. The influence of psychiatric symptoms and cognitive abilities on competence-related abilities. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2011;10:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2010.550982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. White AJ, Meares S, Batchelor J. The role of cognition in fitness to stand trial: a systematic review. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2014;25:77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2013.868916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yates KF, Denney RL. Neuropsychology in the assessment of mental state at time of offense. In: Denney RL, Sullivan JT, editors. Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting. New York: Guilford; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Larrabee GJ. Detecting of malingering using atypical performance patterns on standard neuropsychological tests. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003;17(3):410–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Larrabee GJ. Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2012;18:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lees-Haley PR, Iverson GL, Lange RT, Allen LM III. Malingering in forensic neuropsychology: Daubert and the MMPI-2. J Forensic Neuropsychol. 2003;3(1-2):167–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Denney RL. Symptom validity testing of remote memory in a criminal forensic setting. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 1996;11(7):589–603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bush SS, Ruff RM, Troster AI, Barth JT, Koffler SP, Pliskin NH, Reynolds CR, Silver CH. Symptom validity assessment: practice issues and medical necessity NAN Policy & Planning Committee. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;20:419–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marcopulos BA, Hedgar L, Arredondo B. Dissociative amnesia or malingered amnesia? A case report. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2016;16(2):106–17.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Boone KB. Clinical practice of forensic neuropsychology: an evidence-based approach. New York: Guildford Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  29. van Oorsouw K, Merckelbach H. Detecting malingered memory problems in the civil and criminal arena. Legal Criminol Psych. 2010;15:97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Meltzer CC, Sze G, Rommelfanger KS, Kinlaw K, Banja JD, Wolpe PR. Guidelines for the ethical use of neuroimages in medical testimony: report of a multidisciplinary consensus conference. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(4):632–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Graduate Psychology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

    Bernice A. Marcopulos & Kristen T. Campbell

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Bernice A. Marcopulos

  3. The Forensic Panel, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Welner

Authors
  1. Bernice A. Marcopulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Welner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristen T. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernice A. Marcopulos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Karen M. Sanders

Chapter Review Questions

Chapter Review Questions

  1. 1.

    True/False: Treating providers should not also serve as expert witnesses for their patients.

  2. 2.

    True/False: The Dusky standard refers to the mental status sufficient to refuse treatment.

  3. 3.

    True/False: Neuropsychological testing is critical to evaluate the nature and validity of cognitive complaints.

  4. 4.

    True/False: The term capacity is used in clinical contexts in which a medical professional will render an opinion about a patient’s ability to make a decision about their medical care.

  5. 5.

    True/False: A patient can be diagnosed with dementia and still have the capacity to make medical decisions.

  6. 6.

    True/False: Insanity is a clinical concept, not a legal definition.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marcopulos, B.A., Welner, M., Campbell, K.T. (2019). Forensic Challenges in Medical Settings for Physicians and Neuropsychologists. In: Sanders, K. (eds) Physician's Field Guide to Neuropsychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8722-1_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8722-1_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-8720-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-8722-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation