Page 9 - Forensic News Journal Jan Feb 2018

How to Choose an Expert Witness?

evaluated a young woman which was done in two A crafty interviewee can

in a personal injury case. parts, my preference is to easily the DSM-IV criteria
She was not responding to do the entire evaluation in and regurgitate them to the
the simplest of questions. one sitting. Fatigue works doctor. Obviously, there

Although she alleged pain both ways. If I am well is a tendency to exagger-
in the interrogatories, it rested, I am usually able ate because of secondary

took 10 minutes to find to remain focused longer gain. One of the best ways
out where she hurt, along than the plaintiff. I find of countering this is for
with the quality of the that a fatigued examinee the expert to know more

pain and yet, I still did not is not able to continue a than the litigant about how
have a clear understanding charade and will eventu- the symptoms of PTSD

of her pain! I wondered if ally contradict themselves actually presents itself in
she was a schizophrenic, or talk in an uncensored daily life. For example, if
manic, learning disabled way for the first time in the examinee says that she

or purposely being eva- the interview. suffers from “flashbacks”,
sive. Fortunately, there I ask her for a detailed

was a two-week gap be- Most forensic psychia- description of one of her
tween the interviews. In trists use the criteria of flashbacks or any other
the interim, I received the DSM-IV in making their symptoms which she is

records from her primary diagnosis. Unfortunately, endorsing. This is invari-
care physician, which cov- this text is not uniformly ably followed by a loss of

ered a span of ten years. authoritative. One contro- confidence and arrogance
These records were filled versial area is the diag- if there has been symptom
with notations about her nosis of Post-Traumatic magnification. It is dis-

habit of “double talking” Stress Disorder (PTSD). turbing how many profes-
and lying to her doctor. I Most forensic psychia- sionals accept a litigant’s

was now able to explain trists believe that the DSM symptoms as fact. The key
the basis for her lack of definition of “trauma,” point here is that this ap-
clarity. She was being referring to any event that proach to interviewing is

purposely non-responsive is considered life threaten- meticulous and requires
to my questions, which al- ing, is overly inclusive. more time. It probably

lowed me to confront her Another shortcoming is comes as no surprise that
during the second inter- the fact that the other di- civil defense attorneys are
view. agnostic criteria are sub- more appreciative of this

jective and are usually not approach than their adver-
Despite the above case, seen during the evaluation. saries.

9