Skip to main content

Saving Client Money While Defending Psych Claims

    I’ve been doing psych evaluations for litigation for over 30 years. During that time I’ve worked for both the defense and the plaintiffs or applicants. I’ve read and critiqued between 30,000 and 50,000 psych reports but rarely have I seen a report whose conclusions were adequately supported by the data. For the last 12 years I have been a renegade on a crusade to eliminate substantially flawed reports, being willing to incur the wrath of my colleagues by going into court and testify against other doctors. 

    As part of my service, I have been writing Apricots™ to help attorneys win their cases. For reasons I cannot really understand, most of my commissions come from defense attorneys although substantial flaws are equally found in reports commissioned by both sides. Regardless, an Apricot™ is a work-product privileged report that helps an attorney cross-examine and/or write a trial brief by describing the substantial flaws found in a psych doctor’s report in jargon-free, non-technical language with supporting documentation from the peer-reviewed literature. Apricots™ also provide attorneys with a series of specific questions to ask the doctor that results in getting those flaws into the record despite the doctor’s evasive or noncooperative behavior. 

    One way of saving on the costs of litigation is NOT to hire a doctor to examine the claimant. Let’s see how that might work. 

    Whether you are on one side or the other there will be times when your opposing counsel will have the claimant examined by a psych doctor. That doctor will write a report. One common way of coping with that report is to hire your own doctor to examine the claimant, give deposition testimony and perhaps appear in court to testify about the claimant’s psychological condition. Of course, this is not inexpensive. 

    Another way of dealing with the case is initially to simply deal with the doctor’s reports and records. Considering that the chance is great that the physician’s report is substantially flawed and relatively easily discredited, you can have me write an Apricot™ and use that document and the questions I provide to discredit the doctor’s testimony during a deposition or at trial. At that point, the opposing counsel will be more amenable to a settlement in your favor and you will have saved the expense of another doctor’s report as well as the associated costs of depositions and trial testimony. 

    Finally, I would like to suggest to you that if you have a report that you suspect is substantially flawed you can send me a copy and I’ll tell you all about it’s flaws in a free telephone consult at 844-444-8898. At that point you can decide if you want me to write an Apricot™ or go it alone based on the information I gave you. If you decide on the later you can go to my website at DrLeckartWETC.com and download a free copy of my book, Psychological Evaluations in Litigation: A Practical Guide for Attorneys and Insurance Adjusters and use some other resources found there to plan out your strategy. Or, you can ask me to write a report that includes a complete analysis of the flaws with supporting data and professional literature citations as well as a full set of questions that will dismantle the doctor’s testimony during cross-examination. Either way, I’m here to help.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Psychiatrists and Psychological Testing: A Frequent Nightmare

     As a psychologist who helps attorneys effectively cross-examine psychiatrists and psychologists I frequently have the opportunity to read depositions and trial records.       In those cross-examinations, psychiatrists are often asked about the results of psychological testing that is sometimes completely left out of their examinations and reports.       The most bizarre testimonies are in response to questions about their failure to administer a keystone psychological test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). More often than you might imagine, a psychiatrist will openly testify something like, “I didn’t give an MMPI because I’m not an expert in psychological testing.”       This kind of answer is bizarre because a forensic psychiatrist’s job is to evaluate the patient and arrive at a conclusion about whether or not they have a psychological disorder, and if so, what is it’s likely cause, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It Takes A Renegade Psychologist To Expose Flawed Psych Reports

     I’ve been writing this newsletter and publishing one issue each month since 2009. This is the 140th issue of my newsletter providing what I feel is valuable information for attorneys and insurance adjusters who read medical-legal reports from psychologists, psychiatrists and neuropsychologists. All of my newsletters can be downloaded for free from my website: DrLeckartWETC.com. The motivation for writing these newsletters has been my 30+ years of evaluating approximately 10,000 personal injury and workers’ compensation litigants and my time as a university professor at San Diego State University, during which it has been no secret that psychologists, psychiatrists and neuropsychologists who write medical-legal reports count on not being called on their errors because it is difficult to find a doctor who is willing to stand up and call them on their mistakes. Perhaps they count on their “fraternity” and “sorority” brothers and sisters in the profession not to make wav...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Economics of Dismantling Flawed Psych Reports

     I’ve been doing personal injury and workers’ compensation psych cases for over thirty years. In that time I have evaluated about 10,000 claimants. I’ve also reviewed about 50,000 psych reports. For the last 12 years I have written reports and given testimony that conclusively demonstrates that the vast majority of the opposing doctor’s reports are substantially flawed and can be revealed on cross-examination of the doctor to be worthless with regard to a judge and/or jury drawing a reasonable conclusion that a claimant has had a psychiatric injury. As part of what I write in my reports, which are commissioned to critique the opposing doctor’s conclusions, I provide attorneys with a specifically designed line of direct questions that demonstrate to even the most unsophisticated juror the worthlessness of the opposing doctor’s opinions.       My reports are not inexpensive. A typical report costs between $6,000 and $10,000, depending on the number ...
Post a Comment
Read more