Psychological Injury and Damages: Forensic Assessment in Personal Injury Cases
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Psychological injury and damages are assessed in personal injury cases when a legal decision-maker needs evidence about emotional suffering, mental health symptoms, functional consequences, and possible links to an alleged harmful event. A forensic psychological assessment reconstructs how a person's functioning changed, integrates records and clinical findings, and considers alternative causes. The court applies the legal rules governing liability and damages. The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize impartiality, adequate factual foundations, multiple information sources, and appropriately limited opinions.
What Is Psychological Injury?
Psychological injury is a descriptive term for adverse changes in emotional, cognitive, or behavioral functioning associated with an event or injury. A person may experience anxiety following a collision, persistent distress after an assault, depressed mood related to reduced mobility, or sleep problems during recovery. Some reactions meet diagnostic criteria for a psychiatric disorder; others remain significant without meeting a threshold for a categorical diagnosis.
The distinction matters in litigation. A symptom is a reported or observed experience. A diagnosis is a clinical classification using specified criteria. A psychometric score measures responses or performance under defined conditions. Functional impairment concerns limitations in work, daily activities, relationships, or participation. A forensic opinion integrates the evidence for a particular psycholegal question. A damages award is a legal decision. These concepts require separate evidentiary reasoning.
Emotional distress, mental anguish, and damages
Emotional distress and mental anguish describe psychological suffering in legal language. In some cases, pain and suffering also encompasses the emotional consequences of physical injury. The standards for proving emotional harm, the types of damages available, and whether a physical injury is required vary with the jurisdiction and cause of action. Cornell Law School's overview of emotional distress and its discussion of negligent infliction of emotional distress describe important legal distinctions.
Psychological evidence may help explain the severity and duration of suffering, documented treatment, limitations in function, and possible future needs. It does not establish a universal monetary conversion from symptoms to compensation. Legal rules determine recoverability, allocation, and valuation.
Symptoms and clinical diagnosis
Relevant symptoms can include intrusive recollections, avoidance, anxious arousal, depressed mood, irritability, disturbed sleep, changes in motivation, concentration complaints, and heightened fear. Their clinical significance depends on duration, intensity, context, pattern, and impact. Similar symptoms can be associated with multiple psychiatric or medical conditions, chronic pain, medication effects, or stress.
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be assessed where the clinical exposure and symptom criteria are potentially met. Depression or adjustment-related problems may arise in other situations. A clinical diagnosis does not by itself establish that the alleged event caused every symptom, that a defendant is legally responsible, or that a particular category of compensation is owed. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs PTSD assessment guidance distinguishes screening from comprehensive diagnosis and notes the need for corroboration in forensic settings.
Functional impairment
The assessment should characterize actual changes in employment, transportation, household activities, parenting, sleep, relationships, social activity, and recreation. Functioning may vary across activities and days. Someone can remain employed while experiencing clinically meaningful distress; another person may show substantial impairment without qualifying for a particular diagnosis. A careful report identifies specific limitations, evidence of baseline functioning, and the degree to which observations converge with records.
Why Is a Forensic Evaluation Requested?
A civil referral may ask whether symptoms are present, whether they represent a clinically recognized condition, how they evolved, whether an incident is a plausible contributor, whether a preexisting condition was aggravated, and what the evidence supports concerning impairment and prognosis. Questions about disability, occupational functioning, medical injury, or earning capacity may also require medical, neuropsychological, or vocational specialists.
The evaluator should define the legal questions before selecting methods and should distinguish contested factual claims from independently documented circumstances. Whether retained by a plaintiff, defendant, insurer, or court, the psychologist should review favorable and unfavorable evidence without adopting a party's desired result. The APA forensic practice guidelines describe these professional responsibilities.
Common Settings for Personal Injury Evaluation
Road traffic accidents and travel-related symptoms
After a collision, a person may report fear of driving, avoidance of specific roads, recurring memories, poor sleep, irritability, or depression related to physical injury and lost independence. A 2025 systematic review of PTSD after road traffic accidents found wide variation in study populations, diagnostic definitions, measurement methods, and follow-up periods. Its findings establish research context, not an individualized diagnosis or causal opinion.
The forensic assessment considers the event and perceived threat, contemporaneous medical records, the immediate course of symptoms, preexisting psychological difficulties, the degree of physical injury, pain, rehabilitation, and new stressors. Vehicle damage alone is not a psychometric indicator. Neither a severe collision nor minor visible damage guarantees a particular psychological outcome.
Assaults and threatening events
An assault or another threatening event may produce fear, avoidance, disruption of trust, disturbed sleep, and changed feelings of safety. Assessment may require careful consideration of repeated trauma and of continuing risk or conflict. The person's emotional presentation should be placed in context: composure cannot exclude psychological suffering, and visible distress cannot independently verify contested facts.
The evaluator's task is to examine symptom and functional evidence under the referral question. A judge or jury determines disputed legal facts. Clinical interpretation should identify which conclusions would change if material allegations are accepted or rejected.
Chronic pain and physical injuries
Pain, sleep disturbance, anxiety, physical restriction, and depressed mood can influence one another during rehabilitation. Psychological influences are part of real health functioning and do not mean that pain is imaginary. A systematic review and meta-analysis on pain catastrophizing and functioning reported associations but judged the overall evidence to be of very low quality. The correlation cannot establish that a particular patient's pain or limitation was caused by a psychological construct. A 2026 review adds research on pain-related cognitions while leaving individual causation to case-specific analysis.
Medical information, pain treatment, sleep, medications, physical capacity, and rehabilitation history should inform the evaluation. Psychologists should state when orthopedic, pain-medicine, or vocational evidence is needed.
Traumatic brain injury and overlapping difficulties
Fatigue, irritability, concentration complaints, headache, sleep changes, and perceived memory difficulties may occur with brain injury, pain, PTSD, depression, or combinations of conditions. A review of co-occurring traumatic brain injury and PTSD discusses diagnostic overlap, and prospective research demonstrates why postconcussion-type symptoms cannot automatically identify one underlying cause.
A psychological inventory alone cannot establish a structural neurological lesion. Specialized neuropsychological assessment and appropriate medical evidence may be necessary, especially if cognitive causation or long-term capacity is at issue.
Causation: The Central Forensic Question
A change following an event may support the hypothesis that the event contributed to psychological harm. Temporal sequence is evidence, but chronology alone does not establish sole cause, legal responsibility, or the degree of contribution. Symptoms may also reflect prior conditions, subsequent events, medical illness, medication effects, loss of employment, chronic pain, and the stress of prolonged recovery.
A careful evaluator generates and tests alternative explanations. These can include a new condition after the incident, worsening of an existing disorder, interaction between old vulnerabilities and new pain, an unrelated condition arising around the same time, or insufficient information to determine the relative contributions. The strength of an opinion depends on how evidence discriminates among these accounts.
Establishing the pre-injury baseline
Relevant records may include prior counseling notes, psychiatric medication, primary care records, past physical injuries, previous work accommodations, occupational performance, and contemporaneous accounts from people familiar with the person's functioning. Absence of a prior diagnosis is not proof that no symptoms existed: access to care and help-seeking differ. A documented preexisting disorder also does not mean that an accident could not aggravate it.
Baseline reconstruction asks which activities were performed before the event, how frequent symptoms were, what treatment was needed, whether problems were intermittent, and whether there were periods of remission. The evaluator then compares this baseline with the pattern and degree of change after the alleged incident.
Multiple contributing causes and aggravation
A claimant may have longstanding depression and develop new highway avoidance after a crash. Persistent physical pain may then worsen sleep and mood. A later unrelated family crisis may contribute further distress. Such interacting pathways are more plausible in many cases than an explanation assuming that every consequence arose from a single event.
When no scientifically defensible method supports exact causal percentages, assigning a precise proportion of suffering to the incident creates false precision. The legal treatment of aggravation, preexisting vulnerabilities, proximate cause, apportionment, and mitigation differs among jurisdictions and is applied by legal decision-makers.
Clinical and legal causation
A treating clinician may reasonably formulate that an accident contributed to a patient's symptoms. A forensic examiner must document the causal reasoning, examine rival hypotheses, and explain uncertainty. Legal causation also depends on the applicable rules defining actionable conduct, injury, responsibility, and damages.
Population findings about risks of PTSD or depression following injury cannot determine that an individual defendant caused an individual's symptoms. An expert opinion needs case-specific evidence, and it should distinguish documented facts, unverified assumptions, clinical inferences, and legal findings.
The Forensic Assessment Process
Define the referral question and the examiner's role
The first step is to clarify the legal issue: whether a particular condition is present, whether the incident plausibly caused or aggravated it, how functioning changed, whether a reported limitation is clinically supported, or what future care is indicated. Referral questions may overlap, but each requires its own evidence. An evaluator should identify the retaining party, deadlines, relevant records, jurisdictional context, and professional competence.
The person examined should understand the purpose of the examination, the evaluator's relationship to the retaining party, who may receive findings, and the limits of confidentiality and privilege. A forensic examination usually has a different purpose from psychotherapy. The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology address informed notification, role clarification, confidentiality, and impartiality.
Review records and develop a timeline
Evidence may include emergency and primary care records, treatment and medication history, physical rehabilitation notes, earlier mental health assessments, employment records, occupational accommodations, disability documentation, and appropriately authorized collateral accounts. A timeline can distinguish immediate symptoms, later developments, treatment response, unrelated intervening events, and reported changes in activities.
Records must be understood in context. An emergency note may omit psychological complaints because the visit centered on physical stabilization. A detailed later claim may include interpretations formed after repeated discussions. Neither source is necessarily complete. The evaluator identifies what the record proves, what it suggests, and what remains unverified.
Conduct a comprehensive clinical-forensic interview
The interview explores the alleged event, symptom development, previous functioning, physical conditions, current pain, sleep, medications, substance use where relevant, earlier stressors, relationships, work, treatment, and the course of recovery. Specific examples are essential: which routes does the person avoid, which work duties became difficult, how many hours are missed, and what causes variation across days?
A mental-status examination and behavioral observations may be included. Visible distress, apparent composure, eye contact, and manner of speaking can inform descriptive findings but are not reliable standalone tests of truthfulness. An interview should also avoid using suggestive questions to shape a narrative toward a predetermined diagnosis or legal outcome.
Choose assessment instruments relevant to the question
Standardized symptom scales, structured interviews, measures of functioning, and selected personality or validity instruments can contribute information. Their usefulness depends on instrument purpose, validated populations, administration conditions, language, cultural fit, clinician qualifications, and relevant norms. The APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation explain the need for informed test selection and integrated interpretation.
For suspected PTSD, the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a self-report measure of symptom severity used for screening, provisional assessment, and tracking change. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) provides a structured diagnostic evaluation. A high PCL-5 score does not independently establish a PTSD diagnosis, the required exposure criterion, a legally relevant cause, or entitlement to compensation.
Depression, anxiety, health-related disability, and functioning measures can be appropriate in particular cases. A clinical scale cannot be converted into a causal percentage or dollar amount merely because its scoring system generates numbers. Psychometric measurement and a forensic causal opinion answer different questions.
Investigate response validity with appropriate safeguards
Validity measures may flag unusual, internally inconsistent, or atypical responses. Such responses may reflect genuine severe illness, misunderstood items, language barriers, neurocognitive problems, unusual symptom combinations, deliberate exaggeration, or other factors. A screening score is evidence about the response pattern under test conditions. It is not a direct observation of intention and cannot automatically establish malingering.
A 2019 meta-analysis of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test evaluated screening performance across research samples. A 2026 meta-analysis of forensic feigning measures emphasized that positive screens demand additional assessment because false positives can occur. These tools' performance depends on the instrument, thresholds, reference population, and setting; research from criminal competency evaluations cannot automatically be transferred to civil injury claims.
Integrate findings and evaluate alternative hypotheses
The examiner compares interview reports, earlier records, medical information, psychometrics, behavior, collateral accounts, work and functional history, and competing causal explanations. The resulting opinion should distinguish confirmed facts from claimant reports, state when significant data were unavailable, and explain how contradictions were resolved or retained.
A credible report may conclude that the incident plausibly aggravated symptoms while declining to attribute every current limitation to it. Or it may find substantial distress while judging causal allocation uncertain. The duty is to state the actual evidentiary conclusion with its limitations, not to endorse an adversarial position.
Understanding Measurement Accuracy and Uncertainty
Reliability concerns consistency of measurement. Validity concerns whether the evidence supports a proposed interpretation. A symptom measure may be valid for documenting reported distress but unsuitable for predicting duration of legal disability or identifying the sole cause of suffering.
Sensitivity reflects detection of a target condition or response pattern, while specificity reflects accurate identification of its absence. A false positive incorrectly flags a person; a false negative misses someone who meets the target condition. Positive predictive value additionally changes with prevalence in the assessed population. Published statistics cannot be applied to an individual claimant without examining how the research sample resembles the forensic context.
Calibration describes whether estimated probabilities correspond to observed outcomes in appropriate groups. Many forensic injury opinions are based on clinical integration rather than calibrated individualized probability models. Where no validated individualized model exists, a confidence-sounding percentage would create false precision.
Differences in language, cultural expressions of distress, disability accommodations, and sample composition can affect scores. The report should explain whether assessment methods have appropriate population evidence. Research validity, legal admissibility, and accuracy in a particular case are related but separate questions.
Functional Impact, Disability, and Occupational Consequences
Functional assessment translates symptom descriptions into specific changes in daily life. Work-related domains may include attendance, punctuality, concentration, sustained productivity, interaction with customers or colleagues, driving, decision-making, and tasks with safety requirements. Household functioning can involve caring for dependents, preparing meals, maintaining the home, shopping, travel, recreation, and relationships.
The psychologist should document what the person can do, what becomes difficult, what accommodations help, and how abilities fluctuate over time. Self-report remains important because internal suffering cannot be directly observed. Occupational and other records may supply convergent or conflicting information.
Being able to attend an occasional social event does not automatically refute ongoing anxiety. Similarly, describing an inability to work does not establish its severity or occupational implications without relevant evidence. Context and task demands matter. A specialized vocational expert may be required to evaluate job demands or earnings consequences, while medical experts address physical restrictions.
Differentiating functional loss from symptom severity
Symptoms and function are related but not interchangeable. A person with intense driving fear may maintain employment if their job does not require travel; another person with more modest symptoms may be unable to meet a driving-intensive role. Evaluators should identify these differences explicitly and avoid a simplistic mapping from questionnaire severity into vocational disability.
A longitudinal perspective is especially useful. Records might show an early period of major restriction followed by partial recovery, a fluctuating course related to pain treatment, or enduring limitations. The temporal pattern matters when evaluating past harm and discussing the future.
Treatment, Recovery, and Future Needs
Psychological recovery varies with previous health, duration of symptoms, physical injury, pain, additional stress, social resources, treatment access, and the effectiveness and tolerability of care. A prognosis should integrate individual history and relevant clinical evidence, while acknowledging that group-level statistics do not determine an exact recovery date.
For some conditions, appropriate care may include evidence-based psychotherapy, medication prescribed by a qualified clinician, coordinated pain rehabilitation, and sleep-focused interventions. Treatment recommendations must be linked to assessed needs and to the particular referral question. Predictions about permanent impairment or lifetime treatment require sufficiently reliable longitudinal and clinical evidence.
A gap in treatment does not prove the person was symptom-free. Costs, access barriers, competing medical needs, stigma, and limited availability of specialized care can affect utilization. Treatment participation likewise does not prove that a specific event caused every symptom for which care was given. Both questions demand case-specific interpretation.
Can the compensation process affect recovery?
Personal injury claims can entail examinations, uncertainty, financial pressure, and repeated discussion of a distressing episode. Studying their effects is complicated: people with more serious injuries may be more likely to seek compensation, and poor outcomes may lengthen involvement in claims.
A 2015 systematic review of financial compensation and musculoskeletal injury outcomes found associations with several health outcomes, while emphasizing heterogeneity and limits on causal inference. A systematic review of compensation and whiplash recovery specifically highlighted possible reverse causality. These findings cannot justify assuming that litigation itself caused a plaintiff's symptoms or that seeking compensation establishes intentional exaggeration.
Damages and the Boundaries of Psychological Expertise
A psychological expert can provide information relevant to emotional distress, symptom duration, diagnostic findings, functional impairment, treatment, prognosis, and aggravation of earlier conditions. Such evidence may inform a court's consideration of pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, or treatment-related costs, according to applicable law.
Legal categories differ. Some involve economic evidence such as invoices, documented costs, and earnings calculations. Others concern noneconomic harms that cannot be derived from a clinical questionnaire. The psychologist's role is to explain the psychological evidence and its limits; the authorized legal decision-maker determines the existence, availability, and amount of damages.
Can damages be claimed without a diagnosis?
Psychological suffering and a formal psychiatric diagnosis are different concepts. Some legal claims may permit recovery for emotional distress without a diagnosis if the relevant conditions are satisfied; others have more restrictive requirements. The Legal Information Institute's emotional distress overview provides an introduction, but controlling law must be assessed for the relevant jurisdiction.
What if psychological symptoms existed before the event?
Preexisting difficulties can affect the baseline and the explanation of current impairment. A new event may aggravate them or produce additional symptoms. The evaluator should describe the documented change and plausible contributing factors, while the legal system applies its rules concerning preexisting conditions and apportionment.
Can a psychologist assign an amount to distress?
A psychologist may describe severity and functional impact using clinically meaningful information. A psychometric score has no validated universal exchange rate into dollars. Economic experts, courts, insurers, or juries may perform different functions depending on the jurisdiction and procedural setting.
Admissibility and the Reliability of Expert Testimony
In U.S. federal cases, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires a showing, more likely than not, that qualified expert testimony is helpful to the trier of fact, grounded in sufficient facts or data, based on reliable principles and methods, and the product of reliable application of those principles and methods. The 2023 amendment emphasizes the judge's role in determining admissibility.
The Daubert framework is relevant to federal expert evidence, while state evidentiary rules may apply different formulations. A reliable forensic report identifies source quality, the fit between methods and questions, test limitations, alternative explanations, and the actual chain of inference. Professional credentials do not make an unsupported causal conclusion scientifically valid.
Experts should clearly distinguish their opinions from legal findings and can state conditional conclusions when important factual allegations remain disputed. If the psychological interpretation would change under a different version of events, that dependency should be stated.
Hypothetical Example: Collision, New Driving Fear, and Prior Depression
Consider a claimant who reports avoiding highways, sleeping poorly, and reducing work hours after a collision. Emergency records document physical injuries, and follow-up visits mention new driving anxiety. Employment records show a reduction in hours. Earlier medical records also disclose intermittent insomnia and a treated depressive episode before the crash.
A structured evaluation would review whether the postcollision symptoms meet criteria for a particular clinical diagnosis, examine the role of pain and medications, document functional change, and test explanations involving prior mental health and later stressors. The evaluator might reasonably conclude that new travel-related symptoms are consistent with a collision-related response while identifying uncertainty about the causes of broader fatigue or insomnia.
If later records reveal an unrelated illness or clarify baseline occupational difficulties, the conclusion may require revision. The example illustrates conditional forensic reasoning and does not determine legal fault or a monetary award.
Ethics, Impartiality, and Fairness in Civil Forensic Assessment
An evaluation may involve intensely private medical history, contested allegations, and substantial financial stakes. Ethical practice requires clear role definition, respect for confidentiality and legal disclosure rules, proportionate collection of relevant information, sensitivity to the examinee's circumstances, and a report that distinguishes findings from inferences. The APA forensic guidelines address competence, impartiality, informed notification, conflicts of interest, and the limits of opinions.
Treating therapists and independent forensic examiners have different professional relationships. Treatment prioritizes care and ongoing clinical support, while forensic evaluation is organized around a legal question and communication of evidence to authorized recipients. A treating clinician may possess valuable longitudinal observations but may lack an independent evidentiary foundation to answer contested causation questions. Switching roles requires particular care because it can affect therapeutic trust and impartiality.
Cultural, linguistic, and disability-related validity
Psychological distress can be communicated in different emotional, bodily, and social terms across cultures. Language proficiency, disability, neurodivergence, health literacy, and access to healthcare can affect testing and interview participation. Instruments validated in one population may have different properties in another. The report should document interpreter use, accommodations, relevant normative limits, and uncertainty that affects interpretation.
Different eye contact, muted emotion, unusual narrative order, or culturally specific symptom descriptions should not become unsupported accusations of dishonesty. Trauma-informed interviewing, contextual assessment, and appropriately chosen tests improve fairness and the relevance of psychological evidence.
Adversarial allegiance and cognitive bias
Experts may be exposed to selective records, one party's account of contested events, and incentives to interpret ambiguous evidence in a preferred direction. Confirmation bias and hindsight bias may affect both sides. The evaluator should actively seek disconfirming information, document evidence gaps, distinguish assumptions from facts, and clarify when findings would differ under alternative factual scenarios.
How to Read a Forensic Psychological Report
A useful report identifies the referral questions, evaluation dates, relationship to the retaining party, limits of confidentiality, information sources, assessment methods, and reasons those methods were chosen. It explains the person's relevant baseline, the alleged incident, symptom and functional course, diagnostic considerations, response validity, alternative contributing conditions, and the basis for every material conclusion.
Readers should be able to distinguish direct examination findings, the examinee's own statements, prior medical records, collateral evidence, established research, and the evaluator's professional interpretation. Missing records, conflicting sources, departures from standardized administration, and population limits should be described.
The conclusion should answer each referral question at the level the evidence supports. Some questions may be answered confidently, others conditionally, and some may remain unresolved. Transparent boundaries make the report more useful to the court.
Common Misconceptions
Psychological injury can involve significant distress without a formal PTSD diagnosis. A diagnosis does not automatically establish civil liability. A high test score does not prove causation. Previous mental health treatment does not exclude a new injury or an aggravation of earlier symptoms. Seeking compensation does not establish malingering.
Behavioral composure during an interview does not disprove internal suffering. Conversely, intense emotional expression is not itself proof of a legally disputed event. Psychometric measures have measurement error, classification error, and population restrictions. The function of expert assessment is to integrate evidence, identify competing explanations, and explain the limits of the opinion.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does psychological injury mean in a personal injury lawsuit?
It refers to claimed adverse psychological consequences associated with an alleged harmful event. Forensic evaluation examines symptoms, diagnoses where appropriate, functional changes, evidence of causation, and limitations; governing law defines what may be recovered.
Can emotional distress be real without PTSD?
Yes. Psychological suffering may be substantial without meeting PTSD criteria. Clinical diagnosis and legal recoverability are separate questions.
What evidence is helpful in a psychological injury assessment?
Health records, symptom chronology, documentation of treatment, prior functioning, job or school records, properly interpreted test results, and authorized collateral accounts can all contribute. Their combined relevance and credibility matter.
Can a PTSD checklist prove accident-related PTSD?
The PCL-5 documents self-reported symptoms and supports screening or provisional assessment. Comprehensive diagnostic evaluation and investigation of relevant causal history remain necessary.
Can an accident aggravate earlier depression or anxiety?
It can. Assessment compares baseline symptoms and functioning with the post-event course and examines other contributors. Legal rules determine the significance of aggravation in a specific claim.
Can a validity test determine whether someone is intentionally fabricating symptoms?
A validity measure may identify a pattern requiring further assessment. It can generate false positives and false negatives, and intentional deception cannot be inferred automatically from one score.
Does filing a lawsuit cause the symptoms to persist?
The research contains associations between compensation-related factors and outcomes, but confounding and reverse causation complicate interpretation. Any individual effect requires supporting case-specific evidence.
Do emotional distress damages require physical injury?
Psychological harm may occur without physical injury, while legal recovery for distress without an accompanying bodily injury depends on the cause of action and jurisdiction.
Who determines the dollar amount of psychological damages?
A court, jury, insurer, or other legally authorized decision-maker applies the relevant rules. Psychologists may explain clinical and functional evidence within their expertise.
What makes a forensic evaluator impartial?
The evaluator clarifies the question and role, uses appropriate methods, considers multiple sources and alternatives, reports discrepancies, and explains limitations regardless of the retaining party's position.
For broader context, see Civil Forensic Psychology: Psychological Assessment in Civil Legal Cases.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association, Task Force on Psychological Assessment and Evaluation Guidelines. (2020). APA guidelines for psychological assessment and evaluation. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-evaluation.pdf.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889.
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Emotional distress. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emotional_distress.
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Negligent infliction of emotional distress. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligent_infliction_of_emotional_distress.
Detullio, D., Messer, S. C., Kennedy, T. D., & Millen, D. H. (2019). A meta-analysis of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST). Psychological Assessment, 31(11), 1319–1328. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000753.
Federal Rules of Evidence. (2023 amendment). Rule 702: Testimony by expert witnesses. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702.
Krishnan, N., Trood, M. D., Ruffles, J., Blake, G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2026). Are feigning screens “competent to stand trial”? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, Atypical Presentation Scales, and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Law and Human Behavior, 50(4), 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000661.
Lagarde, E., Salmi, L.-R., Holm, L. W., Contrand, B., Masson, F., Ribéreau-Gayon, R., Laborey, M., & Cassidy, J. D. (2014). Association of symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury with posttraumatic stress disorder vs. postconcussion syndrome. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(9), 1032–1040. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.666.
Martinez-Calderon, J., Jensen, M. P., Morales-Asencio, J. M., & Luque-Suarez, A. (2019). Pain catastrophizing and function in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Journal of Pain, 35(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000676.
Murgatroyd, D. F., Casey, P. P., Cameron, I. D., & Harris, I. A. (2015). The effect of financial compensation on health outcomes following musculoskeletal injury: Systematic review. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0117597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117597.
National Center for PTSD, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5). https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-int/caps.asp.
National Center for PTSD, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). FAQs about PTSD assessment: For professionals. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/overview/faqs_ptsd_professionals.asp.
National Center for PTSD, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp.
Shimada, S., Doorenbos, A. Z., Goldstein, E., & Wi, D. (2026). A systematic review of pain catastrophizing and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Management Nursing, 27(1), e72–e84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2025.07.014.
Spearing, N. M., Connelly, L. B., Gargett, S., & Sterling, M. (2012). Does injury compensation lead to worse health after whiplash? A systematic review. Pain, 153(6), 1274–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.007.
Trajchevska, M., & Jones, C. M. (2025). Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulting from road traffic accidents (RTA): A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(7), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22070985.
Vasterling, J. J., Jacob, S. N., & Rasmusson, A. (2018). Traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder: Conceptual, diagnostic, and therapeutic considerations in the context of co-occurrence. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 30(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.17090180.