Dr. Bruce Leckart - Forensic Psychologist

     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-te

     John Jones gets injured. For this horror story, it doesn’t matter if he was at work or shopping in a supermarket. It doesn’t even matter how the claimed injury occurred or even if he was really injured.       John gets a lawyer to represent his interests. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the lawyer files the claim saying the injury was psychological or psychiatric. The lawyer then sends John to a psychologist or a psychiatrist for an evaluation and treatment. The doctor writes a report stating that John had an injury. He begins treatment. The insurance company representing the defendant sends John to another doctor for an opinion. That doctor doesn’t completely concur with John’s lawyer’s doctor but agrees that John was psychologically injured.       At some later time in the claims process, the insurance company pays John some money to compensate him for his injury. John, his lawyer, the insurance company, the defense’s lawyer, and both doctors are all happy with the sett

     It’s no secret that vast numbers of people are getting anxious, depressed and experiencing a variety of psychologically produced physical symptoms as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. One cause of these symptoms is the fear of illness to themselves, relatives and friends. Another cause is the disruption of their lives caused by occupational events such as fellow employees coming down with the illness and the potential of becoming infected as a result. Yet, another cause is the potential of their employer either temporarily or permanently closing their doors resulting in unemployment and an inability to provide for loved ones.       In the area of workers’ compensation, one has to be concerned with whether or not the above-described circumstances constitute a mental health injury as defined by the Labor Code and/or legal regulations. The key here is the definition of a Mental Disorder. In this regard, the DSM-IV-TR is very clear in stating that in order to be a disorder the con

     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 waves. Certainly,

     I have to admit that for the 35 years I have been practicing forensic psychology I have been on a crusade.       Before I started my practice I was a tenured full professor, an academic who did research, wrote and edited journal articles and books, served on Ph.D. committees and taught a variety of courses. Believe it or not, although I wrote a book on boredom, eventually my life at the university became boring. One afternoon while playing tennis with an orthopedist friend I was complaining about my boredom when he said, “Have you ever thought about doing workers’ compensation?” I said, “What’s that?” He replied that he would bring me some psych reports and did so at our next tennis game. I took a quick look at those reports and said, “You’re kidding! This is garbage. I can do a better job standing on my head.” That was the beginning of the biggest change in my life!       For the last 35 years I’ve focused on how awful most medical-legal reports are. In fact, I’ve read what I est

     For over 30 years I’ve been doing psychological evaluations in litigation. In 2011 I published the second edition of Psychological Evaluations in Litigation: A Practical Guide for Attorneys and Insurance Adjusters.       At this link you’ll find a free copy of my book (https://drleckartwetc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/FINAL-051311.pdf) . No viruses included so you can feel free to open it. Trust me, I’m a doctor!       Among the many things you can do with this book is determine if a psych report is flawed. Then when you make that discovery you can try to figure out how you can expose the doctor and their report on cross-examination. This is not an easy task unless you’re both an attorney and a shrink. It can be done and the book tells you how to do it. This is the one hundred thirty-eighth of a series of monthly newsletters aimed at providing information about predeposition/pre-trial consultations, psychological evaluations and treatment that may be of interest to attorneys and

     I have been doing medical-legal evaluations on a psychological basis for over 30 years. In addition to evaluating patients with personal injury or workers’ compensation claims, I am firmly dedicated to discrediting poorly-written psych reports and helping attorneys see better outcomes with their psych cases. For over 10 years I have been writing Apricots™. Apricots™ are written reports that describe the major flaws that exist in psych reports using easy-to-understand terminology that provides information that an attorney needs to successfully cross-examine a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a neuropsychologist and/or draft a brief for the court. It also provides an extensive list of questions that will expose the flaws in a psych doctor’s report during cross-examination.       Through my work over the years, I have become aware that attorneys who cross-examine psych doctors typically prepare for this task by designing questions directed at the doctor’s conclusions in one or more of

     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, how disabling is that disorder and what can be done to return the patient

     The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly demanded pause in many aspects of life. However, something that will never cease are mental problems experienced by humans. In fact, early studies show that the chaos of the current pandemic has elevated mental and emotional problems, some of which are experienced by essential workers because of the stress of their essential job. Attorneys and insurance professionals who handle personal injury and/or workers’ compensation claims are likely working remotely and have begun to see claims of mental or emotional injury due to events associated with COVID-19. Attorneys and adjusters who handle psych cases stemming from events of COVID-19, or any psych case antedating the COVID-19 pandemic, will be in a good position if they are able to understand the report submitted by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or neuropsychologist.       I’ve been doing medical-legal evaluations on a psychological basis for over 30 years. In addition to evaluating patients with

     Don’t accept a substantially flawed psych report. Get the report dismissed!       Unfortunately, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists and psychologists often write reports for the courts that are substantially flawed. When you get one of those reports, the first hurdle is to figure out if the doctor did a good job in writing their report or if the report contains fatal errors that could warrant the dismissal of that report by the Trier of Fact. This newsletter will discuss five steps to determine if the report is substantially flawed and should be thrown out.       Before proceeding to a discussion of the five steps referred to above, it is imperative that the attorney decide to attack the diagnosis, which is invariably the most vulnerable part of the doctor’s report. It is almost never a good idea to attack the doctor’s conclusions about causation, the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score, apportionment, temporary or permanent disability and/or treatment recommendations with

G.M. Filisko's article published in July, 2017 ABA Journal states that psychiatrists and psychologists " are among the toughest witnesses to challenge because their testimony can have elements of hearsay as well as subjectivity ."  Filisko further states, "Bruce Leckart, a Los Angeles-based forensic psychologist and professor emeritus of psychology at San Diego State University, has developed a set of rules for cross-examining mental health professionals. One rule is to never ask them about the patient directly but instead confine questions to their report. Another is to always determine whether they have taken a complete history of the patient’s symptoms and complaints to support the diagnosis."     Read the full article here: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/cross_examine_psychiatrists_psychologists

     Many of you who have referred cases to me over the last three plus decades know that for the last 10 years I have been writing ApricotsTM. An ApricotTM is a work-product privileged report written for an insurance adjuster and/or an attorney who believes they have a substantially flawed psychological or psychiatric report that can harm their client’s case. My job is to find and describe those flaws in nontechnical language and to discuss the specific techniques and strategy for cross-examining the doctor with simple questions designed to get those flaws on the record during a deposition or trial despite the doctor’s potential evasiveness. That same ApricotTM can be used to write a brief for the trial court or an appeal.       One fact that has always fascinated me is that the vast majority of reports coming from forensic psychiatrists and psychologists are substantially flawed. Last month I wrote a newsletter addressing the question, “Why Are There So Many Weak Psych Reports?” So,