Skip to main content

3 Ways to Deal With Psych Reports During the COVID-19 Pandemic

    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 personal injury or workers’ compensation claims, I am firmly dedicated to helping attorneys and insurance professionals understand the psych reports they receive and empowering them to see better outcomes with their psych cases. While my attorney-client privileged consultations can be done on the phone, they are most effective in a written report format that the report can be taken to and used during depositions and trials. I call these written-reports Apricots™. 

    Of course, the current pandemic situation has probably “paused” in-person depositions and court appearances indefinitely. No need to worry. You can still challenge the psych doctor’s report with an Apricot™. An Apricot™ is a written analysis of the substantial flaws that exist in the psych doctor’s report that can be used to cross-examine the doctor by video or phone, to draft a trial brief or petition for the court, and/or to negotiate a favorable settlement with the opposition. 

    1) Cross-Examine the Doctor by Video or Telephone 

    Attorneys working remotely can cross-examine a psych doctor by video or phone using an Apricot™. Apricots™ provide information that an attorney needs to successfully cross-examine a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a neuropsychologist. It also provides an extensive list of questions that will expose the flaws in a psych doctor’s report during cross-examination. 

    2) Draft a Trial Brief 

    Current stay-at-home orders may prevent attorneys from taking the doctor’s deposition and/or trial testimony. When taking the doctor’s testimony by video and/or phone is also not an option, or not desired, an Apricot™ can be used to draft a brief for the court. 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 draft a brief. Attorneys simply copy and paste the short paragraphs with citations to the psychological literature that describe the report’s fatal flaws from the Apricot™ into the trial brief. 

    3) Negotiate a Favorable Settlement 

    An overwhelming majority of psychological and psychiatric reports are flawed and do not constitute substantial medical evidence. An Apricot™ will describe all of the flaws found in a report submitted by psychologists, psychiatrists and/or neuropsychologists. Apricots™ are written on an expert witness basis where the written report is not admissible but protected by the work product doctrine and completely confidential. However, attorneys can choose to use the Apricot™ as a negotiating tool with the opposing attorney. 

    In summary, if you are an attorney or adjuster who handles psych cases in general, and psych cases that are the result of events of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, you can use an Apricot™ to help see better outcomes. Working remotely should not have to preclude you from challenging the psych doctor’s conclusions or accepting a flawed report. In fact, a recent testimonial from a defense attorney communicates the essence of an Apricot™. According to the attorney, the Apricot™ was the most thorough document she has encountered and used almost all of the questions provided. She indicated that she was able to completely discredit the doctor’s diagnosis of a Major Neurocognitive Disorder during deposition to the point that the opposing attorney was staring at her in shock (mouth agape) while she was asking the doctor questions provided by the Apricot™.

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