ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Traumatic Brain Injury Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Traumatic Brain Injury Law Blog

Joe Reid Discredited Again

By Bruce Stern

ADVERTISEMENTS

Readers of my blog will remember that last fall I was honored to speak at the annual conference of the National Association of Neuropsychology (NAN).  During my presentation, I accurately indicated that Dr. Joe Reed had misinterpreted a court’s ruling in the case of Chapelle v. Ganger which dealt with Daubert challenges (admissibility) to various expert testimony.
 
Dr. Reed in a 1996 article wrote that in the Chapelle case, the trial judge ruled the fixed neuropsychological test battery met the Daubert standard while the flexible battery did not.This statement, as I correctly pointed out, was an error.
 
Therefore, I was interested to read a recent article published in the Clinical Neuropsychologist by Manfred F. Greiffenstein, Ph.D. entitled “Clinical Myths of Forensic Neuropsychology”. 
 
In his article, Dr. Greiffenstein discusses what he calls various myths surrounding forensic neuropsychology. While I disagree with the majority of this article, Dr. Greiffenstein correctly observed that one of those myths is that “only the fixed battery is admissible under Daubert.”  Dr. Greiffenstein attributes this myth to the article cited above by Reed.  Dr. Greiffenstein writes:
 
 “The assertion of the Halstead-Reitan battery’s superior admissibility is a myth for two reasons.  It is easily disproved by showing that Reed materially mischaracterized the Chapelle ruling....Second, fifteen years of Daubert jurisprudence have not been accompanied by any increase in Halstead-Reitan use or decline in flexible approaches.”
 
Thus, there is further evidence that Dr. Reed’s reading of the Chapelle decision is an error.  Whether this was simply an innocent misreading, a lack of understanding or a material “mischaracterization” as Dr. Greiffenstein charges is left to the reader.
 
What is clear is the assertion that Chapelle upheld the use of the fixed test battery and found that the flexible battery did not satisfy the Daubert standard simply is incorrect.

Full post as published by Traumatic Brain Injury Law Blog on August 25, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 10/31/26 13:16:55)