Skip to main content

The Economics of Dismantling Flawed Psych Reports

    I’ve been doing personal injury and workers’ compensation psych cases for over thirty years. In that time I have evaluated about 10,000 claimants. I’ve also reviewed about 50,000 psych reports. For the last 12 years I have written reports and given testimony that conclusively demonstrates that the vast majority of the opposing doctor’s reports are substantially flawed and can be revealed on cross-examination of the doctor to be worthless with regard to a judge and/or jury drawing a reasonable conclusion that a claimant has had a psychiatric injury. As part of what I write in my reports, which are commissioned to critique the opposing doctor’s conclusions, I provide attorneys with a specifically designed line of direct questions that demonstrate to even the most unsophisticated juror the worthlessness of the opposing doctor’s opinions. 

    My reports are not inexpensive. A typical report costs between $6,000 and $10,000, depending on the number of diagnoses and the number of errors the doctor made. They usually run about 50-70 pages. In those pages the attorneys and adjusters find specific information about the substantial flaws in the opposing doctor’s report. Nowhere in my reports do I present any unsupported summary conclusions. Everything I say is documented and backed up with the appropriate citations from the extensive published peer-reviewed psychological and psychiatric literature dating back to the 1800’s. Not only am I a renegade crusader in pursuing my fraternity brothers and sorority sisters in forensic psychology and psychiatry who “mess up,” I’m also a student of the game, and a Professor Emeritus of Psychology who at one time was the youngest full professor of psychology in the United States. If there is a forensic psychologist with my academic background I’ve never heard of them. 

    So now I want you to consider the logic behind spending between $6,000 and $10,000 to dismantle or destroy another doctor’s testimony. The bottom line here is that if a plaintiff’s or applicant’s attorney presents a six to eight-figure settlement demand, and I have worked on some very large cases, my fee is miniscule provided I can do what I say. So what is it that I do? What is the logic or rationale behind my reports? 

    Essentially, the major problem with psychological and psychiatric reports is misdiagnosis. Once an attorney can demonstrate that there is no support for the doctor’s diagnosis all of the conclusions about a compensable mental injury get thrown out the proverbial window. Well, how is that done? 

    The current accepted standard for psychological diagnoses is the DSM-IV-TR, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. A beautiful book that clearly and directly specifies the signs and symptoms that must be present in order to draw a conclusion that the plaintiff is suffering from a disorder. So where do the doctors fall short? 

    As I’ve written in innumerable places, including my book, Psychological Evaluations in Litigation, a copy of which you can read and or download for free on my website at DrLeckartWETC.com, psychological diagnoses are based on as many as five sources of information. These sources are: 

1. The doctor’s complete history of the patient’s symptoms or complaints, including information about their qualitative nature, frequency, intensity, duration, date of onset and course over time. 

2. The results of the doctor’s Mental Status Examination, including data obtained from their direct observations of the patient’s mood, affect, memory, concentration, insight and judgment. 

3. The findings of an objective psychological testing battery, including data in the form of specific scores from a well-known, valid and reliable test such as the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), that show that the patient has been both honest and credible during the doctor’s examination and in all reasonable medical probability is suffering from one or more psychological disorders found in the DSM-IVTR. 

4. and 5. A review of the patient’s medical records and a presentation of any data that may have been obtained from the patient’s friends, relatives and/or business associates supporting the doctor’s conclusions. 

    Most importantly, I provide a series of specific questions to ask the doctor, that when answered demonstrate the opposing doctor’s conclusions are wrong! Those questions are backed up with cold, hard data and reasoning that can stand up to any attempt of the opposing counsel to rehabilitate the doctor’s typically embarrassing testimony

    Quite simply, it is a rare psychologist or psychiatrist who has written a report and/or given deposition or trial testimony that demonstrates the existence of a psychological disorder as a result of the claimed injurious occurrence(s). 

    Compare my $6,000 to $10,000 fee that results in the opposing doctor’s testimony being shown to be worthless with the jury and/or judge providing an award that dwarfs my charge!

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