A practical method for the evaluation of symptom exaggeration in minor head trauma among civil litigants

Forensic psychiatrists and psychologists are often called on to provide opinions and render testimony in which minor head trauma accompanied by persistent somatic, cognitive, and/or emotional symptoms is alleged. The frequency of persistent symptoms following such minor head injury is generally low. The forensic clinician therefore must differentiate between subtle brain dysfunction, symptom amplification, psychogenic-based causes for the presence of cognitive and other deficits, or frank malingering. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to review critical issues related to the assessment of malingering and symptom exaggeration in mild head injury cases; and second, to offer a practical model for the assessment of amplified neuropsychological and psychiatric deficits in civil litigants in cases of minor head trauma.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Binder and D. E. McNiel "He Said--She Said": The Role of the Forensic Evaluator in Determining Credibility of Plaintiffs Who Allege Sexual Exploitation and Boundary Violations J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, June 1, 2007; 35(2): 211 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]