Skip to main content

A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Getting an Apricot™

    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, this month I’m going to talk about the economics of ApricotsTM. 

    How much does an ApricotTM cost? The answer to this question must first address the issue of how an ApricotTM works. With few exceptions, the strategy for demonstrating that a psychiatrist’s or a psychologist’s report is substantially flawed rests on showing that there is no support for the doctor’s or their failure to make a diagnosis. This is done by revealing that there are no data in the doctor’s report indicating either that the patient has met the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnostic criteria. Essentially, in the case of the former, the cost depends on the number of diagnoses that must be addressed. The more incorrect diagnoses provided by the doctor the more time it takes me to show that they have erred sufficiently to disqualify their report as being capable of proving or disproving a disputed medical fact. At the very least you can expect to pay about $4,000 and the office record is about $12,000 with most reports costing about $7,000 to $8,000. If you’re concerned about how much a specific report might cost to demolish, just send it to me by email and I’ll tell you exactly what’s wrong with it and give you a free estimate. 

    Now, is it worth it? Well, if you’re a personal injury defense lawyer what is your exposure? If the plaintiff was in an automobile accident and is claiming a Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as well as some physical injuries, how much of the potential loss to the carrier is the claim of a psych injury? Simple arithmetic. Similarly, if you are a personal injury plaintiff attorney and the defense has gotten a washout report, how much of the potential gain will be lost to you and your client if that washout report is allowed to stand? Again, simple arithmetic. 

    Moving on to workers’ compensation, the same logic applies. At the risk of being old school and trite, how much is it going to be worth to you and your client to demonstrate that the opposing doctor’s report is not worth the paper it’s written on? Simple arithmetic. Most importantly, it won’t cost you anything if I can’t show the report is flawed and provide you with a set of questions to ask the doctor during a deposition or a trial that will clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that the doctor has not shown what he or she has claimed in their conclusions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Viewing Psych Reports Through A Different Lens

     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 doct...
Post a Comment
Read more

How lawyers can effectively cross-examine psychiatrists and psychologists

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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