Psychiatric Disability in Law Enforcement Officers.

Law enforcement officers all across the world are exposed to violence, confrontation, and traumatic incidents. They regularly witness death and suffering and are at risk of personal injury. Psychiatric sequelae include an increased risk for trauma-related symptoms, depression, alcohol-use disorders, and stress-related medical conditions. Law enforcement officers have been applying for early disability retirement pensions at an increased rate for stress-related psychiatric and medical conditions. As a result, law enforcement agencies are prematurely losing valuable resources, officers with training and experience. Departments have become proactive in trying to address mental health issues to prevent psychiatric disability by implementing employee wellness plans and stress reduction interventions. Programs have been developed to mitigate the effects of stress on law enforcement personnel. Many law enforcement agencies have developed strategies to encourage early confidential referral for psychiatric treatment. They utilize peer support groups and employee assistance programs and develop alliances with mental health professionals. When these approaches fail, a fitness for duty process can be used to identify impairment in work functioning due to psychiatric factors with the prospect of later returning the officer to full duty. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Gender bias and judicial decisions of undue influence in testamentary challenges.

Allegations of undue influence constitute a common basis for contests of wills. Legal research from the 1990s suggests that gender bias factors significantly into judicial decision-making regarding alleged undue influence and testamentary intent. In this study, we sought to assess whether this bias is present today and to identify any factors that may be associated with it. Probate judges from several jurisdictions in the United States were asked to consider two hypothetical case vignettes drawn from actual published decisions. In our study, the gender of the testator played only a minor role in how judges weighed factors in the decision-making process and, overall, did not significantly influence opinions regarding the presence of undue influence. The specifics of the case and the gender of the judge emerged as the most consistent and robust potential influences on decision-making. Our results suggest that probate rulings involving undue influence are likely to represent a complex interaction of factors involving the testator's and judge's genders and the specifics of individual cases. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Peer review and psychiatric physician fitness for duty evaluations: analyzing the past and forecasting the future.

In the United States, oversight of health care practitioners is delegated to a matrix of health care entities including but not limited to the state medical board which licenses physicians in the relevant jurisdiction. Typically, these organizations have their own codes of professional conduct. When a physician joins one of these health care organizations, legally the physician has entered into a contract with the organization and agreed to be bound by its regulations and procedures. The organization's peer review of a member physician for reasons of investigating questions of health care quality may require a psychiatric fitness for duty evaluation. That assessment is a forensic psychiatric examination to assist the peer review body much as an expert witness would assist the trier of fact in a criminal or civil law adjudication. Experts can better perform these functions if they are familiar with the legal differences that define these agencies' service under administrative as compared to civil or criminal law and procedures.

Peer review committees and state licensing boards: responding to allegations of physician misconduct.

Although physicians tend to be more concerned about malpractice actions, adjudication of complaints of alleged physician misconduct by peer review organizations and state licensing authorities can have equally serious consequences. Unlike medical malpractice, no patient injury is necessary to support the claim of alleged misconduct. Unlike malpractice, in which a plaintiff must be the injured party, in administrative peer review, colleagues, family members, and patients may all qualify as potential complainants. Unlike malpractice, where the standard of care is what the average prudent practitioner would be expected to do in similar circumstances, in peer review, the standard of care is the code that the organization has endorsed and to which the individual practitioner has agreed by choosing to join the organization. Forensic psychiatrists who may serve either as experts for a peer review or state board investigation or as peer review committee members must understand the legal foundation of the process and the attendant psychological and sociopolitical forces affecting the different parties.

Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric treatment settings: regulation, case law, and risk management.

Changing federal regulations, civil rights and malpractice cases, and new treatment methods have influenced the use of restraint and seclusion (R&S) in inpatient psychiatric treatment settings, such that restraint and seclusion today are among the most highly regulated practices in psychiatry. Despite increased pressure from regulatory bodies and litigation, the use of R&S remains controversial and risky. These procedures can compromise safety if performed incorrectly or monitored inadequately, but intervention by restraint or seclusion may be necessary to maintain safety on the treatment unit, especially during emergencies. Case law and medical research have demonstrated the importance of a patient-focused, treatment-oriented approach toward risk management. Analysis of specific clinical scenarios can help to develop risk mitigation strategies that are therapeutically conceptualized rather than driven by regulation. Insights drawn from clinical cases that have resulted in litigation can offer an opportunity to develop an approach oriented to patient care from a clinical or risk management perspective. In this article, we seek to provide a foundation for evaluation of current protocols, an analysis of adverse R&S events, and strategies to minimize risk.

Firearm laws: a primer for psychiatrists.

Persons with mental illness or substance abuse have been perceived by the public to pose an increased risk of violence to themselves and others. As a result, federal and state laws have restricted the right of certain categories of persons with mental illness or substance abuse to possess, register, license, retain, or carry a firearm. Clinicians should be familiar with the specific firearm statutes of their own states, which describe the disqualifying mental health/substance abuse history and the role and responsibility of the psychiatrist in the process. State statutes vary widely in terms of the definitions of, and reporting requirements relating to, prohibited persons with mental illness or substance abuse. States also vary in the duration of the prohibition and in the timing of the appeals process. Some of the statutes have specific provisions for the removal of a firearm when a prohibited person is identified. States may maintain a mental health database that is used to determine firearm eligibility and may forward information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 will likely increase the number of persons identified as belonging to the prohibited class.

White-collar crime: corporate and securities and commodities fraud.

In this era of increased interest in white-collar crime, forensic psychiatrists are in a key position to study the individual characteristics of offenders. While a comprehensive theory of high-level white-collar crime should consider societal and organizational contributions, there is value in understanding the personal traits that place an individual at high risk for offending. As the impact of the criminal acts of this group has been increasingly felt by larger groups from all socioeconomic strata, there is less willingness by the public to view these crimes as victimless and harmless.