The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
-
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law · Jan 2008
CommentCommentary: implications for assessment and treatment of addictive and mentally disordered offenders entering prisons.
In this commentary, we discuss the main findings of the research study by Gunter et al., "The Frequency of Mental Health and Addictive Disorders Among 320 Men and Women Entering the Iowa Prison System: Use of the MINI-PLUS." This commentary provides an overview on the use of standardized assessments with prison populations; prevalence rates of mental and addictive disorders within prisons; substance use disorders, as opposed to substance-induced psychiatric disorders, among prison populations; and research on diversion treatment programs within the community for nonviolent mentally ill and substance-using offenders.
-
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law · Jan 2008
Factors associated with agreement between experts in evidence about psychiatric injury.
Psychiatrists and psychologists acting as expert witnesses in court cases are often accused of bias or error. We examined the level of agreement and factors influencing agreement between expert reports admitted into evidence during adversarial civil proceedings. The inter-rater reliability of the psychiatric diagnosis was examined in 51 pairs of civil medicolegal reports written by experts engaged by the same side and 97 pairs of experts engaged by opposite sides. ⋯ Reports written by experts engaged by opposing adversarial sides had poor agreement about the presence of any mental disorder and also the specific psychiatric diagnosis. Experts were more likely to agree about the presence of a mental disorder if the plaintiff was involved in a fatal accident. The agreement of treating doctors and experts was similar to that of pairs of experts.
-
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law · Jan 2008
CommentCommentary: Applications of functional neuroimaging to civil litigation of mild traumatic brain injury.
The current definition of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) is in flux. Presently, there are at least three working definitions of this disorder in the United States, with no clear consensus. Functional neuroimaging, such as single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET), initially showed promise in their ability to improve the diagnostic credibility of MTBI. ⋯ Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for introduction of scientific evidence at trial. At the present time, there is a clear lack of clinical correlation between functional neuroimaging of MTBI and behavioral, neuropsychological, or structural neuroimaging deficits. The use of SPECT or PET, without concurrent clinical correlation with structural neuroimaging (CT or MRI), is not recommended to be offered as evidence of MTBI in litigation.