A novel methodology for the objective ascertainment of psychic and existential damage.

Personal injury is a legal term for a physical or psychic injury suffered by the plaintiff under civil and/or tort law. With reference to non-pecuniary damages, the evidence itself of physical and/or psychic injury is not sufficient for damage compensation. The process of ascertaining impairments and/or disabilities which pertain to the "personal sphere" of the individual, such as pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and/or psycho-existential damage, poses particular difficulties in relation to the obtainment of scientific evidence. The "immateriality" and the subjective connotation of the personal sphere are, in themselves, critical issues. The clinical data obtained from the neuropsychological ascertainment find their essential prerequisite in the active participation of the examinee who, in legally relevant contexts (criminal law, civil law, insurance), may be "affected" by personal interests. The present manuscript presents a novel interdisciplinary methodology, experimented on a series of judicial and extra-judicial cases, aimed at the attainment of objectivity and accuracy eligible in relation to the judicial settlement of cases and other matters involving the ascertainment of peculiar aspects of non-pecuniary damage.

Padova Charter on personal injury and damage under civil-tort law : Medico-legal guidelines on methods of ascertainment and criteria of evaluation.

Compensation for personal damage, defined as any pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss causally related to a personal injury under civil-tort law, is strictly based on the local jurisdiction and therefore varies significantly across the world. This manuscript presents the first "International Guidelines on Medico-Legal Methods of Ascertainment and Criteria of Evaluation of Personal Injury and Damage under Civil-Tort Law". This consensus document, which includes a step-by-step illustrated explanation of flow charts articulated in eight sequential steps and a comprehensive description of the ascertainment methodology and the criteria of evaluation, has been developed by an International Working Group composed of juridical and medico-legal experts and adopted as Guidelines by the International Academy of Legal Medicine (IALM).

Opioid regulation: time to reconsider the nomenclature and approach.

In Australia, deaths due to the ingestion of opioid analgesics, though numerically small, have been increasing at a rapid rate. The reasons for this increase are multifactorial; the conceptually outdated legislation that controls prescription and administration of opioid analgesics might be one of them. The stated purposes of the governing statutory instruments include prevention of the improper use of drugs of dependence and protection of the public. However, in order to achieve these aims, the relevant legislation should utilise theories and definitions that are consistent with the medical understanding of the relevant physiology and behaviour, so as to provide a common linguistic and conceptual platform for regulatory and clinical decision-makers. Although Victoria, with its intricate statutory framework for Schedule 8 poisons, is used as an example of an obsolescent approach to the concept of drug dependency, conclusions reached are applicable to other jurisdictions, other scheduled drugs, and all health care practitioners who have the statutory authority to possess and prescribe them.

Malingering pain in the medicolegal context.

Malingering--the willful, deliberate, and fraudulent feigning or exaggeration of illness--was originally described as a means of avoiding military service. In present-day clinical practice, malingering may occur in circumstances where the person wishes to avoid legal responsibility or in situations where compensation or some other benefit might be obtained. In law, the term malingering is used in relation to persons to whom military regulations apply; in other situations, malingering is regarded as fraud and may lead to charges of perjury or criminal fraud. Assertions that an individual is malingering are particularly common in clinical settings where the complaint is of a subjective nature and is not accompanied by objectively demonstrable organic abnormalities. This may occur in relation to complaints of pain in situations where the person is entitled to receive pain-contingent compensation or is suing for damages. In this article, we will review the literature on pain and malingering and discuss attempts that have been made to develop methods and guidelines for the detection of malingered pain. There are, however, no valid clinical methods of assessment of possible malingering of pain. In our view, the ultimate issue of the veracity of the plaintiff is for the Court to decide, and epithets such as "malingerer" have no place in reports prepared for legal purposes by health care professionals.

Survey of methods for the rating of psychiatric impairment in Australia.

One of the enduring clinical issues in the assessment of plaintiffs in personal injury and workers' compensation claims, as well as applicants for social security and disablement benefits, is that of the evaluation of impairment and work incapacity. Many writers on this topic confuse the concepts of impairment and disability, and similar confusion is reflected in a number of the rating methods that purport to evaluate impairment but in reality assess disability. In Australia there are 20 distinct statutory schemes for workers' compensation, motor accident compensation, and social security and other benefits, which utilise a variety of methods for the rating of psychiatric impairment. Recent legislative changes designed to restrict access to personal injury compensation at common law, which in two Australian State jurisdictions require the use of impairment rating scales, also specify the rating methods to be used in the assessment of psychiatric impairment. This article discusses the concepts of impairment and disability as defined by the World Health Organisation, and reviews the various methods for the rating of psychiatric impairment that are specified by statute in the federal and State jurisdictions in Australia.

Compensation, pain complaints, and psychological disturbance.

This study compared 47 patients with chronic low back pain who were involved in personal injury litigation with 33 patients not seeking compensation who were also complaining of low back pain. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale and the adjectival check-list of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Psychological state was assessed using the Zung Depression Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Eysenck Personality Inventory and the Hostility and Direction of Hostility Questionnaire. The group involved in litigation contained significantly more males, and the duration of pain was significantly less. The mean age of the 'compensation' group was less than that of the 'no compensation' group, but this did not reach statistical significance at the 5% level. There was no difference between the two groups on ratings of pain severity or pain description, and no difference on measures of psychological disturbance. Both groups had significant elevations of mean depression, neuroticism, state anxiety and trait anxiety scores when compared with the normal population. It was concluded that there is no support for the claim that personal injury litigants describe their pain as more severe than do non-litigants, and that both groups show similar levels of psychological disturbance.

Postoperative pain control: contribution of psychological factors and transcutaneous electrical stimulation.

The influence of transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) and psychological factors in determining the intensity of acute postoperative pain was examined in a prospective, double-blind controlled trial completed by 30 patients having elective surgery. Psychometric tests were administered prior to surgery. Postoperative pain was assessed by cumulative morphine requirement (M48) administered intramuscularly, and the mean score of a visual analogue scale of pain (VAS), in the first 48 h following surgery. M48 was significantly correlated with the VAS score (r = 0.62, P less than 0.001), and with the psychometric test scores for trait-anxiety (r = 0.70, P less than 0.001) and neuroticism (r = 0.67, P less than 0.001). Though patients treated with TES required 25% less morphine than those treated with placebo, the difference was not significant using monovariate analysis and applying unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test (P less than 0.2). When the contribution of neuroticism to the variance of M48 was adjusted using multiple regression analysis, the effect of TES became significant at the 0.05 level. Covariance analysis showed that TES contributed some 19% to the explained variance of M48 while neuroticism contributed about 80%, and there was no interaction between these two factors. These findings allow a degree of prediction of the individual patient's postoperative pain and narcotic requirement, and point to a strong correlation between postoperative pain perception and personality.