Skip to main content

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding The Source of Weak Psych Reports

If you’re an attorney or an adjuster in workers’ compensation or personal injury, general liability, or any jurisdiction where a psych doctor produces a report of their evaluation or treatment in response to the claim of a mental injury, you are always confronted with psych reports that are weak. But do you understand them and do you know how to defeat them? Let me help you do both! This month I’ll tell you how to understand them. In the next two months, I’ll tell you how to beat them.   Many of you who have referred workers’ compensation and personal injury cases to me over the last three plus decades know that I have evaluated between 5,000 and 10,000 applicants and plaintiffs. As part of my practice I’ve read tens of thousands of psych reports, the vast majority of which are demonstrably substantially flawed.    First, a little of my professional history will help to understand what I think is going on. For the first 30 years after getting my Ph.D. I was a full-time college professo

A Horror Story For Insurance Companies

     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

Flawed Psych Reports: Winners and Losers

     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