Medical-Legal Issues in Traumatic Brain Injury.

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) cases often involve both medical and legal issues, litigation and prolonged recovery timelines. As TBI cases are often complex, and can have a significant impact on the lives of the patients and their families/caregivers, having a comprehensive understanding of the causes, diagnoses, treatments and long term outcomes will be valuable in understanding the medical and legal aspects of this type of injury. Patients, families, and health care professionals will all benefit from a deeper understanding of the medical and legal aspects of TBI, which should help improve rehabilitation and recovery outcomes.

Lost diagnoses? A multi-year trajectory of patients with childhood ADHD in the criminal justice system in Switzerland.

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is prevalent amongst offenders, increasing risks for aggressive and delinquent behaviors. Since ADHD and its symptoms can persist into adulthood, accurately diagnosing and maintaining diagnoses in offenders is crucial to ensure appropriate treatment and reduce recidivism. Methods: This study employed a retrospective longitudinal design to investigate ADHD amongst adult offenders with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD during childhood or adolescence at a Swiss forensic outpatient clinic between 2008 and 2021. N = 181 patient files were reviewed, including forensic expert witness assessments and treatment reports. We charted the adulthood trajectory of patients with a confirmed childhood/adolescence ADHD diagnosis, examining the course of their diagnoses. Results: Of 181 patients, evidence indicated that 12 (7%) had an ADHD diagnosis in childhood/adolescence. In 1 (8%) of these 12 cases, the diagnosis was maintained throughout the observation period. For 4 patients (33%), a diagnosis was given in the first forensic psychiatric expert witness assessment in adulthood but subsequently dropped. In another 4 cases (33%), the diagnosis was dropped in adulthood but later re-assigned, whereas in 3 cases (25%), the diagnosis was discontinued throughout the observation period. In 50% of cases with a diagnostic change, the discontinuation of an adult ADHD diagnosis coincided with a newly diagnosed personality disorder (or vice versa). Conclusions: Our findings highlighted considerable inconsistencies in the assignment of adult ADHD diagnoses amongst offenders. Whilst ADHD remission in adulthood occurs, the diagnostic variability in our results warrants detailed scrutiny. One possibility is that ADHD has similar fluctuations to conditions like depression, as argued elsewhere. Equally, diagnoses may become "lost", meaning they are not given even when applicable and replaced by other diagnoses. Additionally, residual symptoms may remain but beyond the diagnostic threshold. This is significant because untreated ADHD can increase re-offending risks and adverse health outcomes.

Crime, punishment, and detention in secure psychiatric hospital.

Many legal jurisdictions offer some form of hospital diversion and disposal as an alternative to incarceration in prison for mentally disordered offenders. Such diversion is commonly understood as offering a non-punitive alternative in terms of sentencing decisions. However, complete loss of responsibility with respect to acts of violence is rare and indicative of extreme degrees of mental disorder. This raises challenges for sentencers when considering disposal options. From the perspective of the patient and healthcare providers while hospital may be framed as non-punitive, it still involves marked loss of freedom and rights. In this essay, it is argued that failure to acknowledge the punitive element, inherent in hospital detention, risks its repression, and a false dichotomy being established with prison being seen as solely punitive and hospital as solely therapeutic. It is suggested that this division is unhelpful, even potentially harmful, and that a synthesis as solution to this dialectic opposition may be generative in terms of therapeutic work in hospitals, clarification of the role of hospitals in terms of criminal justice disposal, and greater transparency in relation to multi-agency working and the social circumstances of patients detained in secure hospitals. Further work to understand this process is suggested with a particular emphasis being placed on the experience of specific groups of patients, such as women, who may find themselves in a notably precarious state within secure care.

3D scanning a crime scene to enhance juror understanding of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis evidence.

There are numerous crime scene investigation applications of 3D scanning that have been previously documented. This paper documents the application of a 3D point cloud in the presentation of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis evidence to mock jurors. 150 mock jurors viewed a presentation of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis evidence from a murder trial in the UK. After viewing the evidence, the participants were tested on their knowledge of the evidence and repeated the test again 2 weeks later; to simulate criminal trial conditions; whereby there is a time lapse between the initial viewing of evidential material and deliberation. This paper found that the mock jurors who additionally viewed a 3D flythrough of a point cloud of the crime scene, better retained knowledge of the evidence over time, reported a greater ability to visualise the crime scene and had higher levels of interest in the evidence. Crucially, the 3D flythrough group did not report different levels of confidence in the accuracy of their memories of the evidence, nor different levels of emotional arousal to the group that viewed the evidence without the 3D presentation. Together, these findings suggest that 3D scanning of crime scenes, and the resultant point cloud's presentation to jurors, could add further value to the justice system when spatial information, such as Bloodstain Pattern Analysis evidence, is presented.

Mock court: a valuable tool to teach legal procedures to undergraduate medical students.

BACKGROUND: Teaching through role-plays is a preferred modality when certain behaviours or skills need to be taught. They provide a risk-free environment that simulates a real-life scenario. For a clinician, appearance in a Court of Law as an expert witness is a part of his/her legal obligation. OBJECTIVE: To explore the utility of Mock Court as an additional teaching tool for undergraduate medical students, in understanding and familiarizing with legal procedures, specifically the courtroom procedures. METHODOLOGY: We conducted Mock Court sessions with the students playing various roles, following which feedback was collected from the students, teachers and guest assessors. The data was statistically analysed by comparison of frequencies and paired t-test (pre- and post-session comparison). RESULTS: The study revealed a positive effect of the Mock Court sessions on the students, based on their increased confidence, motivation and a better grasp of legal procedures. There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in the understanding of specific aspects of courtroom procedures after the session. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend the active implementation of Mock Court as a teaching aid for undergraduate medical students, and the use of PDSA (Deming) cycle as a tool for quality-checks and self-improvement in subsequent sessions.

Prescribing Justice: A Close Examination of Physicians Acting As Expert Witnesses in Saudi Arabia.

INTRODUCTION: An expert witness is a person who provides testimony on issues that the court finds to be outside the scope of their expertise and experience. Any physician who has performed an independent medical evaluation or written medical records can and should expect to be requested as an expert witness. Medical malpractice, workers' compensation, and personal injury are the most prominent areas where medical expert witnesses participate and provide opinions and testimony. To our knowledge, this is the first study to be conducted in Saudi Arabia on physicians acting as expert witnesses. METHODS: This observational descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in Saudi Arabia from November 2022 to July 2023 aimed to assess physicians' experiences, education, training, willingness, self-competency, attitude, and perception as expert witnesses. The study population consisted of physicians working in Saudi Arabia, with at least a specialist level of professional expertise. Participants completed a self-administered online survey, utilizing a researcher-designed questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 417 participants, with males comprising 51.3% of the sample, responded to the survey. More than half of the physicians (58.3%) had never produced a medical report for the court. Among those who had, the majority had done so one to twice. Similarly, the majority had never testified in court (77.5%), with only a small percentage having done so once or twice. Approximately 80% of participants had no prior education or training as expert witnesses, but among those who did, courses and workshops were the most common forms of education or training. Most participants expressed interest in learning or training for this role (69.1%) and were willing to provide medical reports or court testimony (73.9%). However, half of the participants did not feel competent in writing a medical report for the court, and more than half lacked confidence in giving testimony. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the need for increased engagement, education, and training among physicians, particularly early and mid-career professionals, to enhance their confidence and competence as expert witnesses and ensure ethical practices in the medicolegal domain in Saudi Arabia.

The Forensic Mental Health Implications of Social Media Challenges.

Children and adults are increasingly spending time on social networking sites where they may be exposed to social media challenges. These challenges, which are essentially dares or competitions, often involve participants recording themselves performing various activities to create a short video which they then share online. Many social media challenges may be considered relatively benign, but others may involve behaviors or tasks that lead to adverse outcomes, including injury and death. In this article, the authors describe different types of social media challenges, susceptibility to risk-taking among social media users, and the potential criminal and civil legal aspects of these challenges. This article focuses on the forensic mental health implications of social media challenges, including considerations for forensic psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who may become involved in court cases related to these challenges.

Repressed Memories (of Sexual Abuse Against Minors) and Statutes of Limitations in Europe: Status Quo and Possible Alternatives.

One of the most heated debates in psychological science concerns the concept of repressed memory. We discuss how the debate on repressed memories continues to surface in legal settings, sometimes even to suggest avenues of legal reform. In the past years, several European countries have extended or abolished the statute of limitations for the prosecution of sexual crimes. Such statutes force legal actions (e.g., prosecution of sexual abuse) to be applied within a certain period of time. One of the reasons for the changes in statutes of limitations concerns the idea of repressed memory. We argue that from a psychological standpoint, these law reforms can be detrimental, particularly when they are done to endorse unfounded psychological theories. The validity of testimonies is compromised many years after the alleged facts, and abolishing the statute of limitations increases the chance that even more (false) recovered memories of abuse might enter the courtroom. We propose solutions to these changes such as establishing an independent expert committee evaluating claims of sexual abuse.

The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology.

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges-not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to "satisfy" admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science-which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.

A Guide for Physicians Serving as an Expert Witness for Personal Injury Cases and Other Litigations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a guide for physicians serving as an expert witness in all kinds of cases. RECENT FINDINGS: Different societies proposed different guidelines for physicians serving as an expert witness. We wanted to summarize all recommendations in our article to provide a comprehensive guide to all physicians from different specialties. There is some overlap in recommendations, and it is important for physicians from different specialties to be aware of all recommendations proposed. It is very important for any health care provider who serves as an expert witness for personal injury or other cases to understand the guidelines around this process and best practices.

Medical Malpractice and the Neurologist: An Introduction.

This article provides an overview of current malpractice trends in neurology as well as non-malpractice and forensic liability concerns. It is more important for clinicians to recognize the common patient care scenarios that are likely to precipitate lawsuits rather than memorize arcane legal principles. Therefore, this article offers an introduction to malpractice jurisprudence as well as a general overview of current litigation trends and a review of the role and duties of a neurologist serving as an expert witness. The next article highlights mitigation strategies for the most prevalent neurologic misadventures.

[Assessor liability DGOU]. / Gutachterhaftung DGOU.

The legal liability risks in assessments are often overestimated, but also sometimes underestimated. In fact, lawsuits for incorrect assessment are rarely successful, but they are nevertheless annoying and require considerable time for those affected as defendants. In the following, the legal principles of expert opinion liability within and outside of formal court proceedings are presented.

Expert Advice for the Expert Witness.

The malpractice system in the United States provides civil remedies-payment-for patients injured by non-standard-of-care medical practice. Anesthesiologists are not sued often, but one can still expect to be named in a suit at least once in their career. Although many prefer not to be involved in malpractice cases, there is a critical role for anesthesiologist expert witnesses to educate and inform the court regarding the appropriate standard of anesthesia care, and the contribution, if any, of anesthesia clinicians to specific adverse outcomes. This article describes the basic features of malpractice litigation, offering advice for anesthesiologist expert witnesses.

Daubert Considerations in Forensic Evaluations by Telepsychiatry.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased demand for telepsychiatric services. Forensic psychiatrists can expect to receive more requests for assessments conducted via videoconferencing technology in the years to come. Under current rules of evidence in the United States, the testimony of expert witnesses is introduced as a form of scientific evidence and may be challenged by opposing counsel through Daubert hearings. In a Daubert challenge, courts may evaluate proposed expert testimony through four criteria relating to scientific reliability and validity: whether the testimony is based on methods that emerge from a testable hypothesis, whether the method has been subjected to peer review, the known or potential rate of error associated with the method, and whether the method has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. To date, courts have not addressed whether testimony based on a telepsychiatric assessment would meet standards of reliability and validity for admission into evidence, as applied in a typical Daubert hearing. This article explores the Daubert standards and other potential objections to telepsychiatry as they may apply to forensic psychiatric examinations conducted via videoconferencing technology. The discussion also provides suggestions to evaluators to increase the likelihood of such testimony surviving a Daubert challenge.

Investigating false memories among "winners" and "losers" in the prisoner's dilemma.

Many legal cases hinge on evaluating the veracity of two versions of events ("he said, she said"). Expert witnesses are often called upon to testify on the malleability of memory, most often testifying for the defence. This may lead to the theoretically unfounded assumption that it is only victims who are vulnerable to distorted memories of a crime. Inspired by this question, we conducted a series of five experiments in which 2010 participants played a novel version of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Participants could either betray their partner in the game ("winners") or be betrayed by their partner ("losers"). We exposed participants to misinformation concerning the other player's statements to assess whether winners and losers may be differentially susceptible to false memories of the event in question. Across our experiments, including where real financial rewards were at stake, we found that winners were just as susceptible as losers to memory distortion. We highlight the need to consider the possibility of faulty memory affecting all parties to in legal cases, though further research is needed beyond this highly artificial paradigm.

Experts, who needs them? Judicial inconsistency in instruction, admission and interpretation of forensic expertise.

Science is knowledge. Continuing study adds to that knowledge, hence science is in perpetual flux. The law courts too are in flux but change in legal opinion does not necessarily keep pace with that of scientific opinion and the appeal court's concern for finality may override the correction of injustice through progress in understanding. From its casework, the charity Inside Justice has identified failures in the instruction of experts pre-trial and inconsistencies in the admission and evaluation of expert evidence post-trial, illustrated here by half a dozen case studies.

Characteristics of Radiologists Serving as Medical Malpractice Expert Witnesses for Defense Versus Plaintiff.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have reported higher qualification characteristics for anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and otolaryngologists serving as defense (versus plaintiff) medical malpractice expert witnesses. We assessed such characteristics for radiologist expert witnesses. METHODS: Using the Westlaw legal research database, we identified radiologists serving as experts in all indexed medical malpractice cases between 2010 and 2019. Online databases were used to identify years of practice experience and scholarly bibliometrics. Using Medicare claims, individual radiologist practice types and mixes were ascertained. Radiologists testifying at least once each for defense and plaintiff were excluded from our defense-only versus plaintiff-only comparative analysis. RESULTS: Initial Boolean searches yielded 1,042 potential cases; subsequent manual review identified 179 radiologists testifying in 231 lawsuits: 143 testified in one case (58 defense, 85 plaintiff) and 36 testified in multiple cases (10 defense-only, 14 plaintiff-only, 12 both). The 68 defense-only experts had fewer years of practice experience than the 99 plaintiff-only experts (28.3 versus 31.8 years, P = .02), but the two groups were otherwise similar in both practice type (44.6% versus 54.9% academic, P = .62) and mix (63.8% versus 65.8% practiced as subspecialists, P = .37) and as well as numbers of publications (60.5 versus 62.8, P = .86), citations (1,994.1 versus 2,309.2, P = .56), and h-indices (17.2 versus 16.8, P = .89). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other specialists, radiologists serving as medical malpractice expert witnesses for defense and plaintiff display similar qualifications across various characteristics. Published practice parameter guidelines and experts' ability to blindly review archived original images might together explain this interspecialty discordance.

Immigration Judges' Perceptionsof Telephonic and In-Person Forensic Mental Health Evaluations.

Clinicians affiliated with medical human rights programs throughout the United States perform forensic evaluations of asylum seekers. Much of the best practice literature reflects the perspectives of clinicians and attorneys, rather than the viewpoints of immigration judges who incorporate forensic reports into their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess former immigration judges' perspectives on forensic mental health evaluations of asylum seekers. We examined the factors that immigration judges use to assess the affidavits resulting from mental health evaluations and explored their attitudes toward telehealth evaluations. We conducted semistructured interviews in April and May 2020 with nine former judges and systematically analyzed them using consensual qualitative research methodology. Our findings were grouped in five domains: general preferences for affidavits; roles of affidavits in current legal climate; appraisal and comparison of sample affidavits; attitudes toward telephonic evaluations; and recommendations for telephonic evaluations. Forensic evaluators should consider the practice recommendations of judges, both for telephonic and in-person evaluations, which can bolster the usefulness of their evaluations in the adjudication process. To our knowledge, this is the first published study to incorporate immigration judges' perceptions of forensic mental health evaluations, and the first to assess judges' attitudes toward telephonic evaluations.

Cognitive and human factors in legal layperson decision making: Sources of bias in juror decision making.

Juries in adversarial courts are tasked with several responsibilities. They are asked to: 1) assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented; 2) deliberate; 3) and then reach a decision. Jurors are expected to evaluate said evidence in a rational/impartial manner, thus allowing the defendant their right to a fair trial. However, psychological research has shown that jurors are not rational and can reach inaccurate decisions by being biased by certain factors. The aim of the current review was to explore the potential sources from which biases are introduced into the jury. Three main sources of bias were focussed upon: 1) pre-trial bias; 2) cognitive bias; 3) bias from external legal actors (expert witnesses). Legal scholars commonly cite deliberations as a method of attenuating individual juror bias, this claim is evaluated in the review. The review concludes that bias is a multifaceted phenomenon introduced from many different elements, and that several sources of bias may interact with one another during a jury trial to cause the effects of bias to snowball. Four recommendations are made: 1) juror selection should be utilised to create heterogenous juries that challenge problematic biases from individual jurors; 2) increase the quality of expert testimony through training; 3) procedures such as Linear Sequential Unmasking should be adopted by expert witnesses to filter out some sources of bias; 4) legal professionals and jurors should be educated about the effects that biases may have on decision making; 5) more research into bias in jurors is needed.