Forensic neuropsychiatric evaluation of a personal injury case.

Civil litigation involving the forensic neuropsychiatric evaluation of a personal injury case requires an assessment of damages and causation. The expert witness is obliged to integrate data from three critical sources of information: the review of records; the results of neuropsychological testing; and the findings from the clinical examination. In civil litigation involving a personal injury claim, the expert witness can be expected to address causation and prognosis of any neuropsychiatric damages. We discuss the undertaking of a forensic neuropsychiatric evaluation, psychiatric disorders often encountered in personal injury litigation, provide case vignettes and describe a number of special types of forensic neuropsychiatric evaluations, for example, Workers' Compensation, VA Disability and Social Security Disability.

Screening for neuropsychological impairment using Reitan and Wolfson's preliminary neuropsychological test battery.

This study examined the utility of a screening battery developed by Reitan & Wolfson, 2006 for predicting neuropsychological impairment on the Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery for adults. Using archival neuropsychological data from 69 litigants seen in a private practice setting, the Pearson correlation between the General Neuropsychological Deficit Scale (GNDS) score and the total Neuropsychological Deficit Scale (NDS) score from the screening battery (SBNDS) was .82. ROC curve analysis determined that the AUC was .88. Using a cutoff score of 9, as recommended by Reitan and Wolfson, the screening battery had excellent specificity but only fair sensitivity for identifying individuals with neuropsychological impairment on the Halstead-Reitan battery. Using a cutoff score of 8, the sensitivity and specificity of the screening battery was comparable to the findings of Reitan and Wolfson. The findings from this study indicate the optimal cutoff score for the screening battery may vary with different populations. The positive predictive power (PPP) and negative predictive power (NPP) were calculated for various base rates for cut scores with both sensitivity and specificity of greater than .600, and this information is provided.

Performance profiles and cut-off scores on the Memory Assessment Scales.

The increased role of neuropsychologists in the courtroom has led to an increased effort in the detection of possible symptom exaggeration/malingering. Whereas domain specific measures of malingering have traditionally been used in this detection process, the identification of performance profiles and cut-off scores on standard neuropsychological assessment instruments may provide an alternate strategy. The present study evaluated the effectiveness of performance profiles and cut-off scores in discriminating traumatic brain injury (TBI) litigants suspected of malingering from those not suspected of malingering on the Memory Assessment Scales (MAS). Results suggest that TBI litigants suspected of poor effort will perform globally at a lower level than TBI litigants not suspected of poor effort on nearly all MAS indices, however, the performance profiles of each group was similar. Cut-off scores, especially when used in combination, were also effective in correctly classifying individuals in the two groups. The present findings warrant further research examining the utility of the proposed cut-off scores separately and concomitantly. Such research will aid the clinical neuropsychological practitioner in interpreting aberrant performance profiles on the MAS in forensic situations.

Utility of the trail making test in the assessment of malingering in a sample of mild traumatic brain injury litigants.

The Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most commonly administered tests in neuropsychological assessments. It has been shown to be a valid indicator of brain damage due to traumatic brain injury (TBI), as well as a number of other neuropathological conditions. TMT error and ratio scores have been suggested as possible markers of malingering. The present study examined the utility of various TMT scores as malingering measures in 94 TBI litigants. Litigants were divided into those suspected of (n = 27) and those not suspected of malingering (n = 67) based on scores obtained on the Test of Memory Malingering and/or the Rey 15-Item Test. TMT errors did not discriminate between suspected and nonsuspected malingerers; however, the overall level of performance on the TMT was suppressed in suspected malingerers. The TMT ratio score was significantly lower in litigants suspected of malingering, although the clinical utility of this ratio is minimal. Results of the present study suggest using caution when interpreting TMT scores as markers of malingering in TBI litigants.