Personal Injury Law

Green's Word Memory Test

By Bruce Stern

In prior blog entries, I have discussed various literature regarding Green's Word Memory Test.  I have also discussed in the past the need for journals to require its authors to report conflicts of interest.
 
I recently received a copy of the August 2009 issue of Brain Injury, the Official Research Journal of the International Brain Injury Association.  Included in that issue was an article by Paul Green, et al entitled 'Examining False Positives on the Word Memory Test in Adults with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.'  At the end of the article, a 'Declaration of Interest' was included.  There, it stated, 'Dr. Paul Green is the inventor, author and copyright owner of the Word Memory Test, the Medical Symptom Validity Test and the Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Test.  Drs. Flaro and Courtney have no financial interest in these tests.'
 
Unfortunately, Dr. Green failed to acknowledge in his Declaration of Interest, the amount of forensic work in which he is involved and the amount of income he receives as a result of that work.
 
In the body of the article, under the methodology section, he writes,
 
 'Between 1996 and 2008, 1,856 consecutive cases were referred to the first author's private practice for neuropsychological assessment in the context of workers' compensation claims, insurance disability claims or litigation.' 
 
Thus, it is clear, that an extensive portion of Dr. Green's income is derived from forensic work.  How much of that work is on behalf of plaintiffs and how much is on behalf of the insurance industry and self-funded major corporations?  If over this 12-year period, the 1,856 cases were on behalf of defense interests, that would mean that Dr. Green is evaluating a defense forensic case about once every other day.  Assuming a very conservative charge of $3,500 per neuropsychological evaluation (an amount well below that estimated by Dr. Erin Bigler), would mean that Dr. Green has earned approximately $6.5 million for these forensic neuropsychological evaluations over this time period.
 
Unfortunately, neither the article nor the declaration provide the reader with any details regarding a breakdown of the percentage of the 1,856 cases as to whether they were done on behalf of the injured plaintiff or the defendant.
 
Hopefully, in future issues of Brain Injury as well as other journals, conflicts of interests and declarations of interest will include more information regarding the amount of forensic work performed by the authors and the amount of money earned.

Full post as published by Traumatic Brain Injury Law Blog on September 10, 2009 (boomark / email).