Andrew W. Kane – författare

PTSD, pain syndromes, traumatic brain injury: these three areas are common features of personal injury cases, often forming the cornerstone of expert testimony. Yet their complex interplay in an individual can make evaluation—and explaining the results in court—extremely difficult.

Psychological Knowledge in Court focuses on this triad separately and in combination, creating a unique guide to forensic evaluations that fulfills both legal and clinical standards. Its meticulous review of the literature identifies and provides clear guidelines for addressing core issues in causality, chronicity, and assessment, such as:

- Are there any definable risk factors for PTSD?

- How prevalent is PTSD after trauma?

- How do patients’ emotions relate to their pain experience?

- Are current pain assessment methods accurate enough?

- What is the role of pre-existing vulnerabilities in traumatic brain injury?

- What exactly is "mild" TBI?

This sequel to the authors’ Psychological Knowledge in Court offers a welcome expansion on key concepts, terms, and issues in causality, bringing much needed clarity to psychological injury assessments and the legal contexts that employ them.

Focusing on PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and chronic pain (and grounding readers in salient U.S. and Canadian case law), Causality sets out a multifactorial causality framework to facilitate admissibility of psychological evidence in court. Issues concerning malingering are examined in depth, as are clinical gray areas that can jeopardize validity. At the same time, the book clearly explains what lawyers and clinicians need to understand about each other’s work—of crucial importance since the two sides often seem to speak at cross-purposes.

The authors and six guest contributorsIllustrate the roles of preexisting vulnerabilities, traumatic events, and post-event occurrences in psychological impairment and disabilityReview the literature on PTSD, TBI, and chronic pain for legal relevanceIdentify current challenges and controversies in the field, as well as emerging areas for researchRecommend methods and instruments for conducting more courtworthy assessmentsProvide a detailed critical review of malingering and related phenomenaPropose a more accurate, shared terminology of causality

Valid causality judgments are based on sound knowledge of research on large populations and careful testing of individuals; at the same time they must conform to stringent legal standards of relevance and reliability to be accepted for testimony. Forensic practitioners and attorneys will turn to Causality of Psychological Injury as their professional paths increasingly cross in seeking comprehensive and state of the art information.