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

Third Party Observation at Defense Neuropsychological Evaluations

By Bruce Stern

ADVERTISEMENTS

The issue of third party observation at defense neuropsychological evaluations continues to be controversial in the neuropsychological field as well as the legal field. Defense neuropsychologists raise the specter that a third party observer may invalidate test results while plaintiffs attorneys argue defense neuropsychological evaluations are not independent, but adversarial, necessitating the presence of a third person to verify statements alleged by defense neuropsychologists.
 
Recently, this issue was the subject of a hearing in the State of Louisiana. The defendants requested that the plaintiff undergo a defense neuropsychological evaluation. Plaintiff's counsel requested that his client be accompanied by a third person. The defense objected, noting that such a request violated the 2001 National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN) policy on third party observers and the 2009 NAN policy against secretive recording of neuropsychological testing and interviewing. 
 
The plaintiff submitted Linda Lindman's Ph.D. research and dissertation, which found no observer effect on neuropsychological test or examination scores or results. After reading the filed papers, the Court entered an Order in favor of the plaintiff stating the neuropsychological IME could be video recorded from behind a one way mirror. The Court also ordered that the plaintiff not assert any potential ethical violations, as perceived by NAN, against the defense neuropsychologist for the videotaping the IME from behind a one way mirror. Day v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, Division "B," Number 122923.

Full post as published by Traumatic Brain Injury Law Blog on August 27, 2010 (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 Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

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!






0.0026 secs (from cache 11/01/26 00:15:37)