Skip to main content

COVID-19 Psychopathology: Normal or Mental Injury?

    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 condition “must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event.” According, if the person who has anxiety, depression or psychosomatic symptoms is found to have a normal, expectable, reasonable and understandable reaction to their environmental circumstances at work they have not had a compensable psychiatric disorder regardless of how much anxiety, depression and psychosomatic symptoms they may be having. 

    Now, the most important question is: How is what is “normal, expectable, reasonable and understandable” defined? The answer is this is a matter of clinical judgment. It is up to the doctor to decide what is normal. Is it normal to get fearful, worry, get depressed and have a variety of physical symptoms such as heart palpitations, diarrhea and cold sweats or are these normal reactions to the environment? 

    That’s where a competent complete examination will help the doctor, the attorneys and the court come to a reasonable conclusion. 

    Specifically, the doctor must take a complete history of the patient’s symptoms, including information about their frequency, intensity, duration, onset and course over time. The doctor must also take a complete history of what occurred in the workplace that could have produced those symptoms. Then, they must decide if the work occurrences have, in all reasonable medical probability, caused those symptoms. Without that history the doctor’s report is deficient and neither the attorneys nor the court can decide if there has been a psychiatric injury. 

    Additionally, just for completeness, I should point out that the doctor should also give a battery of psychological tests that are headed by an instrument such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) capable of determining if the claimant is providing credible historical data and has the symptoms described during the interview. There must also be Mental Status Examination observational data backing up those symptoms. In addition, it would be helpful to have some medical and/or employment records to back up the patient’s history. 

    In short, in order to conclude that a claimant has had an industrially produced psychiatric injury in the form of a reaction to the coronavirus pandemic the doctor’s report must include: 

1. A history demonstrating the existence of aversive symptoms or complaints. 

2. A history of occupational events that could cause those symptoms. 

3. The doctor’s conclusion, backed up by clear logical reasoning, indicating whether the patient’s reactions were normal, understandable, reasonable and expectable for what occurred, or not. 

4. Psychological testing data demonstrating the patient is a credible historian. 

5. Mental Status Examination data support the patient’s complaints. 

6. Lastly, any available medical and/or occupational data supporting the patient’s history. 

    In summary, in situations where you suspect the doctor has not provided sufficient evidence in their report to support their conclusions you should come up with a series of questions to use in exposing the report’s flaws on cross-examination. That’s where my expertise in reviewing and critiquing psych reports and providing cross-examination questions exposing the flaws in psych reports will be useful to you! Call my office (844) 444-8898 or email us at drleckartwetc@gmail.com for more information.

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