Personal Injury Cases Research Articles

The outrage heuristic

Abstract Many moral judgments are rooted in the outrage heuristic. In making such judgments about certain personal injury cases, people's judgments are both predictable and widely shared. With respect to outrage (on a bounded scale of one to six) and punitive intent (also on a bounded scale of one to six), the judgments of one group of six people, or 12 people, nicely predict the judgements of other groups of six people, or 12 people. Moreover, outrage judgments are highly predictive of punitive intentions. Because of their use of the outrage heuristic, people are intuitive retributivists. People care about deterrence, but they do not think in terms of optimal deterrence. Because outrage is category-specific, those who use the outrage heuristic are likely to produce patterns that they would themselves reject, if only they were to see them. Because people are intuitive retributivists, they reject some of the most common and central understandings in economic and utilitarian theory. To the extent that a system of criminal justice depends on the moral psychology of ordinary people, it is likely to operate on the basis of the outrage heuristic and will, from the utilitarian point of view, end up making serious and systematic errors.

Widening the net: Use of social media data in personal injury and disability evaluations.

A central tenet of forensic mental health assessment is the use of multiple sources of data. Traditionally, these sources have included clinical interviews with and observations of the examinee, written records review, psychological test data, and interviews with collateral sources. Data from social media and social networking sites (SNS) is now widely used in civil litigation. However, existing professional practice standards and guidelines do not specifically address the use of SNS data. This leaves forensic mental health evaluators with little guidance as to why, when and how to incorporate SNS data into their evaluations. We review the extant literature on the use of SNS and other social media data in personal injury and disability cases, including legal, ethical, and practical considerations, with the goal of providing forensic mental health practitioners with a framework for making decisions about when and how to incorporate these data into their evaluations and opinions. We advocate caution in conducting independent searches of social media and the Internet, and in making inferences about internal states based on SNS postings. To illustrate these points, we include a case study.

Forensic neuropsychiatric evaluation of a personal injury case.

Civil litigation involving the forensic neuropsychiatric evaluation of a personal injury case requires an assessment of damages and causation. The expert witness is obliged to integrate data from three critical sources of information: the review of records; the results of neuropsychological testing; and the findings from the clinical examination. In civil litigation involving a personal injury claim, the expert witness can be expected to address causation and prognosis of any neuropsychiatric damages. We discuss the undertaking of a forensic neuropsychiatric evaluation, psychiatric disorders often encountered in personal injury litigation, provide case vignettes and describe a number of special types of forensic neuropsychiatric evaluations, for example, Workers' Compensation, VA Disability and Social Security Disability.

A Guide for Physicians Serving as an Expert Witness for Personal Injury Cases and Other Litigations.

To provide a guide for physicians serving as an expert witness in all kinds of cases. Different societies proposed different guidelines for physicians serving as an expert witness. We wanted to summarize all recommendations in our article to provide a comprehensive guide to all physicians from different specialties. There is some overlap in recommendations, and it is important for physicians from different specialties to be aware of all recommendations proposed. It is very important for any health care provider who serves as an expert witness for personal injury or other cases to understand the guidelines around this process and best practices.

APF Gold Medal Award for Impact in Psychology: Lenore E. Walker.

The APF Gold Medal for Impact in Psychology recognizes Lenore E. Walker for her groundbreaking work with a particularly vulnerable population, those with a syndrome she named Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS). Lenore E. Walker's work has had a transformational impact in psychology, in the courts, in public policy, and in the lives of countless women over a period of more than 40 years. BWS is accepted as a criminal defense in federal court and all state courts and may be raised as 'state of mind' for damages in personal injury cases and in family courts. The central tenet of Dr. Walker's contributions is that the victims of trauma from familial and intimate partner violence, abuse, and degradation all share experiencing common trauma symptoms that may need effective trauma-specific assessment and treatment. Her work has impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands of abused women and their families and continues to be used and expanded upon today. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The Impact of Speed and Accuracy in Personal Injury Cases

The Impact of Speed and Accuracy in Personal Injury Cases

The Impact of Using a Race-Neutral Model to Predict the Educational Attainment and Income of a Child in Personal Injury Litigation

Abstract This paper examines the impact of using a model that excludes race and ethnicity on predicted educational attainment and income of a child in a personal injury legal matter. We use the updated ordered probit models with and without race and ethnic variables from Spizman and Kane (2020) and compare the earning capacity losses of a minor child based on each one. We perform this calculation for more than 3,000 combinations of the right-hand side variables for males and females separately, with more than 1,000 combinations each for White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. We find wide variation within each racial and ethnic group, with some subgroups benefiting and others being adversely impacted. The results of our analyses provide guidance to policymakers who might be interested in the real-world outcomes associated with legislation requiring that race and ethnicity not be considered when estimating damages in personal injury cases.

An Agenda for Future Research in Forensic Economics: Topics from NAFE Surveys and Additional Proposals

Abstract This paper provides suggestions for future research by forensic economists, focused upon personal injury and wrongful death cases. The paper is particially based on questions from our 10 surveys of NAFE members over 25 years, in which members were directly asked to rank future areas of forensic economic research in importance. We discuss answers to important questions where there is little or no consensus among respondents, and where consensus is reasonably clear, as this may influence topics chosen for future research. We also discuss research topics by drawing on our own experience as forensic economists.

Compensation for the Cost of a Surrogacy Arrangement in Personal Injury Cases

A woman who has been rendered infertile by a defendant’s wrong may wish to obtain damages for the cost of becoming a parent through a surrogacy arrangement. Such a claim, which has yet to be brought before an Australian court, would raise two partially overlapping issues under Australian law. First, the claim must satisfy the general requirement that a person who has suffered personal injury can only recover expenses that are necessary and reasonable. Secondly, the laws of the Australian jurisdictions except the Northern Territory regulate surrogacy arrangements and criminalise commercial surrogacy arrangements (where the surrogate mother is promised a fee in addition to the reimbursement of expenses). This regulation may impact upon the recoverability of the cost of a surrogacy arrangement through the concepts of coherence of the law and public policy. The most complex scenario, but also the most likely to arise in Australian personal injury litigation, is that of a plaintiff who lives in Australia and wishes to enter into a commercial surrogacy arrangement in a foreign country in which this is lawful. This article investigates the legal issues that may arise if a claim for the cost of a surrogacy arrangement is brought before an Australian court.

Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of Maryland

Abstract This article is one in the Journal of Forensic Economics series providing experts with information about how to prepare and testify about economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases in the state of Maryland.1 Topics covered include a review of the Maryland state court system, rules regarding expert testimony, and wrongful death and personal injury economic damages calculations. An Appendix contains the relevant statutes.

Update to Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of Nebraska

Abstract In a recent paper, Rosenbaum and Richardson (2019) described assessing economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases in Nebraska. That article omitted discussion of Nebraska's rules regarding hedonic damages. This note corrects that omission.

Update to Assessing Economic Damages in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation: The State of California

Abstract This article is designed to update the original article that appeared in the Journal of Forensic Economics, 17:3 (2004). The article discusses a change in procedure for expert discovery and deposition and five substantive changes and clarifications affecting the legal guidance for valuation of damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases in California.

Is there a “compensation culture” in contemporary Russia? The role of liability insurance, non-pecuniary damages, and legal profession in personal injury litigation

This article explores current trends in personal injury litigation in Russia compared with the common law countries (the UK and US). In contrast to the British and American situation, there is no concern about the problem of “compensation culture” or “litigious behaviour” in Russian public discourse. The number of personal injury cases considered by Russian courts is not particularly high despite the growing number of accidents. This state of affairs can be explained by the influence of the Soviet culture of tort law. The most visible areas of the Soviet impact addressed in the article are liability insurance, non-pecuniary damages, and the legal profession. The article demonstrates the specificity of the Russian approach to these issues. The research is based on the analysis of judicial decisions on personal injury cases, court statistics, and expert interviews with personal injury lawyers. The findings are discussed from a historical and comparative perspective.

The enormous dimensions of forensic odontology

Forensic Odontology, a branch of Forensic sciences that is concerned with dental evidence, has established itself as an important indispensable science in medicolegal matters and has a greater scope of development. It is the study of teeth and jaw as evidence in law and justice. Forensic odontologists help legal authorities and prepare dental evidence by management and maintenance of dental records which contain all legal documents for unique dental information assisting in identification of human remains. This branch can also be of great help in managing human abuse, malpractice, fraud and personal injury cases, assessment of age and sex of the person. This article provides an overview of the basic concepts and conventional methods along with the recent trends used in forensic odontology. So every dental professional is required to have sufficient knowledge and understand the importance of forensic dentistry in injury and abuse cases for proper recording of findings and report to the concerned authorities to help in obtaining legal remedies to the victims.

The Enormous Dimensions of Forensic Odontology

Forensic Odontology, a branch of Forensic sciences that is concerned with dental evidence, has established itself as an important indispensable science in medicolegal matters and has a greater scope of development. It is the study of teeth and jaw as evidence in law and justice. Forensic odontologists help legal authorities and prepare dental evidence by management and maintenance of dental records which contain all legal documents for unique dental information assisting in identification of human remains. This branch can also be of great help in managing human abuse, malpractice, fraud and personal injury cases, assessment of age and sex of the person. This article provides an overview of the basic concepts and conventional methods along with the recent trends used in forensic odontology.

The Impact of the 2017 Tax Act on Certain Personal Injury Plaintiffs

The 2017 Tax Act was the most sweeping federal tax legislation in over a generation. While many of its reforms, from dramatically lowering the corporate tax rate to altering the international tax rules, have already received significant attention, little attention has been paid to the 2017 Tax Act’s effects on personal injury plaintiffs. This Article explores these impacts. The 2017 Tax Act added a new provision that indirectly affects plaintiffs who allege sexual harassment or abuse. The new provision disallows the defendants’ deductions in these cases if the parties enter into a nondisclosure agreement. While targeted at defendants, the provision will likely unwittingly harm plaintiffs by reducing settlement offers. The provision also suffers from a host of ambiguities that the Treasury and IRS will need to resolve. The tax legislation also eliminated so-called miscellaneous itemized deductions. In certain types of personal injury cases, such as defamation and emotional distress cases, this development will cause the plaintiff to be taxed on the full settlement amount even though one-third or more of the settlement will often be paid as a contingent fee to the plaintiff’s attorney. Legislative or administrative action is required to remedy this patent unfairness.

Case-Linked Jurisdiction and Busybody States

Beginning with Justice Ginsburg’s 2011 opinion in the Goodyear case – and echoed in Justice Thomas’s 2014 opinion in Walden v. Fiore and Justice Alito’s 2017 opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court – the Supreme Court has suggested that the distinctiveness of specific personal jurisdiction (in contrast to general jurisdiction) resides in its being “case-linked.” However, to date, the Justices have not spelled out what it takes for a defendant’s contacts with a forum to be case-linked, although they now have an opportunity to do so in a pair of personal injury cases brought against Ford Motor Company. This essay aims to provide the missing account of case-linkage, explaining along the way how it applies to the Court’s pending cases. Our method is constructive and interpretive: we take as our starting point the Court’s precedents and its reasoning about two pillars of personal jurisdiction: state sovereignty and defendant’s due process rights. After Part I’s introduction, Part II re-examines the Court’s personal jurisdiction decisions from International Shoe to the present with the goal of understanding the concept of case-linkage as it has played out in the cases. Part III describes the Ford litigations presently before the Court, explaining why they invite consideration of an aspect of specific jurisdiction that the Court has yet to address adequately. We put forward our theory of case-linked jurisdiction in Part IV. Case-linkage, we argue, can only be understood within a framework that isolates the key concepts that matter for due process. Two are crucial: (1) a concept of the scope of the defendant’s submission to state authority, and (2) a concept of the scope of the forum state’s legitimate interests. We explain the latter in terms of the principle that a state’s courts ought not meddle in affairs beyond the state’s legitimate reach (labeled “the Anti-Busybody Principle”). By explaining case-linkage both in terms of the scope of a defendant’s submission to state power and of a state’s legitimate interests, we offer a way to bring together the process and sovereignty concerns that underlie the law of personal jurisdiction. With our own affirmative account in place, Part V shows why the “causation” approach to case-linkage advocated Ford and by some lower courts are indefensible, even if the more expansive “relatedness” tests of other courts are also not up to the task at hand. We also show that the intuitively right answer to the Ford cases—that a state court has jurisdiction to hear tort claims brought by state residents injured in-state by the defendant’s product (when the defendant has extensively sold the product-line in that state)—not only meshes with all relevant Supreme Court precedents, but also points to the best path forward for understanding, defining, and demarcating case-linked jurisdiction.

COVID, Courts, and Other Controversies

Personal Injury cases seeking recovery for contracting coronavirus are proliferating. These fall into four categories: direct exposure, such as on cruise ships, allegedly claiming negligent property management and decision-making, shareholder liability suits for failure to disclose potential loss from lawsuits, workers compensation cases alleging workplace exposure occurring in the course of employment, and bystander exposure from spouses exposed to their husbands’ who contracted the disease on the job. Proving causation, will, however, be difficult. Proving negligence on the ground of flawed sterilization will also be difficult. Claims against cruise ship operators for failing to notify passengers before embarkation of potential exposure, however, I suggest may have some traction, although at present that route is not being.

The Development of a Short Version of the SIMS Using Machine Learning to Detect Feigning in Forensic Assessment

In the present study, we applied machine learning techniques to evaluate whether the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) can be reduced in length yet maintain accurate discrimination between consistent participants (i.e., presumed truth tellers) and symptom producers. We applied machine learning item selection techniques on data from Mazza et al. (2019c) to identify the minimum number of original SIMS items that could accurately distinguish between consistent participants, symptom accentuators, and symptom producers in real personal injury cases. Subjects were personal injury claimants who had undergone forensic assessment, which is known to incentivize malingering and symptom accentuation. Item selection yielded short versions of the scale with as few as 8 items (to differentiate between consistent participants and symptom producers) and as many as 10 items (to differentiate between consistent and inconsistent participants). The scales had higher classification accuracy than the original SIMS and did not show the bias that was originally reported between false positives and false negatives.

Liability and the Use of Prescribed Fire in the Southern Plains, USA: A Survey of District Court Judges

Suppression of historical fire regimes has changed the composition and structure of many fire-dependent ecosystems, frequently resulting in decreased grazing productivity and biodiversity in grasslands and savannas. Land managers have attempted to reverse these trends through the application of prescribed fire, but regulations and liability concerns often deter them. District court judges play a key role in defining the legal context of prescribed burning by interpreting applicable statutes in personal injury or property damage cases resulting from escaped prescribed fire. However, information about the way judges interpret open burning statutes and regulations is difficult to obtain. We conducted a mail survey of district court judges in Texas and Oklahoma, USA to shed light on decisions judges might make presiding over an escaped fire case. The survey included questions regarding their perception of prescribed fire, their understanding of the laws affecting prescribed burning, and hypothetical questions to determine how they would apply relevant law in an escaped fire case. We found that judges cited fewer factors as evidence of gross negligence than simple negligence. This suggests that a shift toward a gross negligence liability standard for escaped prescribed fire cases might result in fewer findings of prescribed burner liability.