title: Psychiatric malpractice case analysis: striving for objectivity.
abstract: Forensic psychiatrists, acting as expert witnesses, must be able to perform objective analyses of psychiatric malpractice cases. Accurate malpractice case analysis requires careful attention to relevant legal concepts and consideration of potential biasing influences. If forensic psychiatrists are to avoid a reliance on "experts policing experts," individual forensic psychiatrists must be fully prepared to police themselves by recognizing and avoiding certain errors in malpractice case analysis. Any effort to improve objectivity must include a clear understanding of the confounding variables. In this article, the authors discuss some potential impediments to objective analysis of malpractice cases such as the use of the wrong standard, causation, hindsight bias, and contributory negligence.
authors.affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Division of Forensic and Medical Services, 105 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor, Concord, NH 03302, USA. jknoll4@earthlink.net
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Knoll
authors.forename: Joan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Gerbasi
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005260:Female; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000523:psychology; D014481:United States