bauer_collision - Abstracted from a paper presented at the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Abstracted from a paper presented at the 25th meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, Orlando, FL, February 7, 1997. Brain Damage Caused by Collision with Forensic Neuropsychologists Russell M. Bauer, Ph.D., ABPP/CN Departments of Clinical and Health Psychology and Neurology University of Florida Introduction The forensic application of neuropsychological data is becoming increasingly popular, though it seems that the empirical basis of impressions and conclusions that are rendered in forensic settings is relatively meager. This seminar is intended to explore issues regarding conclusions that are rendered about neuropsychological data in forensic settings. In particular, this seminar is concerned with conclusions which lead to testimony that the patient, for whatever reason, is “brain damaged” as a result of a specific accident that is the subject of litigation. The professional neuropsychologist is often called upon to render an opinion regarding the cognitive status of individual patients vis a vis a particular event in time. Attorneys typically request (or demand) that some statement be made about the nature, severity, and origin of the patient’s cognitive deficits, if they exist at all. To what extent can the patient’s problems be attributed to a specific event, like an accident? What is the magnitude of impairment the patient has suffered relative to a situation in which the accident did not occur? These are serious questions, often carrying with them significant implications about the patient’s current self-esteem, the patient’s legal status, and the patient’s future financial well-being. The Problem Defined I give this seminar because I have seen too many patients in litigation whose so- called “impairments” represent either false positive errors or flagrant misuse of neuropsychological data. I believe that most practicing neuropsychologists have encountered at least one of these cases, and that such errors have potentially serious consequences for both patients and neuropsychologists. First, patients who are falsely labeled as “impaired” are sometimes done a potentially serious disservice by their treating neropsychologists because such labels often engender self-fulfilling prophecies. Patients may be led to believe that they are incapable of getting better; that they are permanently disabled, and that they lack control over their present and future status. Further, by virtue of being inappropriately diagnosed, patients may be referred for expensive and labor-intensive treatment or management services that they either don’t need or which is downright detrimental to their post-accident recovery. Second, if these errors exist with any prevalence in litigation settings, then appropriate and reasoned professional activity within the neuropsychological community is undermined. We are ill-served if we do not confront and discuss this problem directly. Why do such errors occur?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

bauer_collision - Abstracted from a paper presented at the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online