Is liability possible for forensic psychiatrists?
نویسندگان
چکیده
Forensic psychiatrists are not as vulnerable to liability as general psychiatrists. The absence of a traditional physician-patient relationship and judicial and quasijudicial immunity are all protective against malpractice actions. Although the absence of a doctor-patient relationship removes an essential element of malpractice, other types of liability such as defamation and ordinary negligence are possible and may not be covered by malpractice insurance. A model is proposed for forensic psychiatry of a partial secondary doctor-patient relationship out-weighted in most circumstances by duties to truth and/or the hiring attorney. Such a model seems most consistent with conflicting duties currently forced on all psychiatrists. This model has advantages of a duty, a violation of which is likely to be covered by malpractice insurance. Rather than deemphasizing partial secondary physician-patient responsibilities, it is advised to stress the important protection provided by judicial and quasijudicial immunity.
منابع مشابه
Liability for the psychiatrist expert witness.
OBJECTIVE An increasing number of general psychiatrists are acting as expert witnesses in the legal system. The purpose of this article is to help psychiatrists who are interested in doing forensic work by informing them of the risks entailed. METHOD The author reviews the medical and legal literature about expert witness immunity. RESULTS The author explains the traditional concept of expe...
متن کاملConducting forensic examinations on the road: are you practicing your profession without a license?
Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals retained in civil or criminal litigation are frequently required to travel to a state in which they are not licensed to perform assessments and offer testimony. Adverse professional and legal consequences may await the unwary peripatetic forensic expert. Failure to address local practice requirements may result in disqualification to testify a...
متن کاملDo you understand your risk? Liability and third-party evaluations in civil litigation.
Many psychiatrists believe that there is little or no liability associated with conducting examinations at the request of a third party or with providing testimony in civil litigation. Case law has demonstrated otherwise. Psychiatrists conducting independent medical examinations (IMEs) may be vulnerable to tort lawsuits by either the evaluee or the third party who commissions the IME. In additi...
متن کاملThe Role of Clinical Psychiatrists in Forensic Evaluations of Legal Sanity
The assessment of criminal responsibility is complex and challenging. In the article “Reliability of repeated forensic evaluations of legal sanity” [1] we found that criminal responsibility was changed at least once in subsequent assessment in 32(27.3%) out of 117 cases. One possible explanation is, that the assessments issued by psychiatrists not employed by courts, were placed on an equal foo...
متن کاملPosttraumatic stress disorder in tort actions: forensic minefield.
The authors discuss posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a basis for personal injury litigation. Three case examples raise issues related to: (1) the controversy surrounding expansion of tort liability, (2) the courtroom use of psychiatric nomenclature as represented in the DSM (e.g., PTSD), and (3) ethical concerns regarding psychiatric expert witnesses. Psychiatrists became easy targets wh...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
دوره 23 2 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1995