Forensic Psychology: Landers v. Chrysler Corporation - Case Study Example

Forensic Psychology (Landers v. Chrysler Corporation) Forensic Psychology (Landers v. Chrysler Corporation) “Forensic Psychology is the application of the science and profession of psychology to questions and issues relating to law and the legal system”(American Board, n.d., p. 1). The etymology of forensic is the Latin word “forensis” which means “of the forum”, a place where courts were held in ancient Rome (American Board, n.d.). Forensic psychology then, is the application of principles of psychology to court processes requiring the specialized knowledge of psychologists. Treatment of an emotionally traumatized person by a psychologist due to accident is clinical in nature but testifying on the extent of the trauma or assessment of psychological damage is forensic (Psychology, n.d.). In the case of Landers v. Chrysler Corporation, the main issue revolves on the competence of a psychologist to testify on medical causation of a work-related injury. The rules of evidence were also raised by employer to exclude records and testimonies for the claimant. Landers, an auto-worker, was loading an engine when a skyhook struck him on his head on September 13, 1989. He was admitted twice in a hospital. Thereafter, he experienced dizziness, inability to work normally, confusion, and several others. He filed the case against Chrysler on December 9, 1997. The administrative law judge (ALJ) granted him an award for future medical care. The employer elevated the case on three points to the appeals court when the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirmed the ALJ decision: 1) the Commission’s findings on medical causation of brain deficits were not supported by evidence as diagnosed by mere two clinical psychologists, 2) the award of future medical treatment for depression is not related to a compensable injury, there being no competent or substantial evidence to support the award, and 3) the findings of a 50% permanent partial disability as a result of the accident is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. The court relied on precedents to bolster the competence of a psychologist to give expert opinion on causation and brain injury such as: the liberal interpretation of a statute on expert witness although said statute excludes psychology from the practice of medicine if the psychologist’s knowledge, skill or experience would assist the trier of fact to understand and determine causation (Hutchison case, Iowa SC. 1994); competence of a neuropsychologist or psychologist to testify on cognitive defects (Cunningham case, Ore. App. 1996), and several others. On the remedial aspect, although Missouri did not adapt Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allowing psychologists to testify on causation, section 490.065, which is similar to Rule 702, was enacted by the legislature. Said section allows expert testimony when it would assist the trier of fact in evaluating the evidence. The Commission, as fact finder, can determine the qualifications of an expert to testify on matters under consideration. On the violation of the seven-day rule (section 287.210.3) which would render the medical records relied upon by Dr. Wetzel’s testimony inadmissible, the court said that claimant need not present evidence to receive award for future medical care (Polavaparu case, Mo. App., 1995). Not a conclusive proof but only a reasonable probability is enough to support the claim (Sifterman case, Mo. App. 1995). The award was supported by sufficient evidence even if portions of the witness’ testimony were premised on inadmissible records. Mere violation of the seven-day rule does not disqualify medical records and testimony from being admitted (Goodwin case, Mo. App. 1996). The Commission did not err in recognizing a 50% permanent partial disability even if claimant missed work for less than five weeks. The Commission is not restricted by percentage estimates of medical experts (Bowman case, Mo. App. 1995) because assessment of disability is not confined to medicine alone. The Commission has the sole discretion to determine the degree of disability to award to claimant (Wiele case, Mo. App. 1997). It is evident that the inclusion of psychological testimony as evidence in the Landers case contributed to the award for future medical care. The testimonies of a psychologist were admitted as evidence in determining medical causation of work-related injury. In fact, several precedents were cited to bolster the qualification and competence of a psychologist on matter which fall within his specific field of expertise. Accordingly, Dr. Wetzel’s competence as a clinical psychologist is strengthened by his track record as a neuropsychology practitioner. He is a full professor in neurology and neurological surgery at a school of medicine and teaches neurologists, neurosurgeons, and psychiatrists in the area of his expertise. Neurologists or neurosurgeons asked for his advice or identify brain areas for surgery. He finds claimant’s depression a direct cause of the accident and his reactive depression which was his reaction to injury were treatable. Claimant’s ability to function is greatly dependent on receiving the treatment. Dr. Fitzgerald also testified that although claimant suffered from organic depression which was not treatable, his reactive depression could respond to treatment. Thus, their testimonies impacted on the Commission’s decision to grant the award. The trier of fact cited the psychological tests and research in the decision such as the neuropsychological tests performed by Dr. Thomas Fitzgerald and the result of his research, e.g. the closed head injury which impaired claimant’s retention and memory, concentration and attention, etc. rendering him non-competitive in the open labor market, and a 75-80% permanent partial disability as a result of his work-related accident head injury. To support its decision, the trier also cited the cognitive tests (tests for intelligence, memory, concentration, verbal skills, etc.) performed by Dr. Richard Wetzel which revealed claimant’s brain dysfunction; depression due brain lesion; cognitive deficits which impaired his activity, communication, learning and control of emotion; and 75% disability due to cognitive impairments. In resolving the issue on the grant of future medical care, the direction of the trier of fact is clearly based on the psychological tests and research. The employer’s expert witnesses also examined and performed tests on the claimant and presented evidence contrary to those of the claimant. In resolving in favor of the award, they put emphasis on the qualification of the clinical psychologists and the role of the Commission in trying the case. The Commission has the sole discretion on which testimony it will give greater weight on medical causation and found sufficient evidence for the claimant. If the incapacity of expert witness of claimant to prescribe medication was sided by the Commission, there would be no award for future medical care. Thus, giving credence to the qualifications of Dr. Wetzel, despite the fact that he does not prescribe medication, and the taking of a drug called Buspar by claimant prescribed by another doctor, which relieves the claimant, and the diagnosis of the clinical psychologists became strong ground for the grant of future medical award. Courts are not science laboratories and its magistrates are not scientists. The trier of facts rely on expert witnesses in their specific fields in arriving at a particular decision and which evidence has a greater weight. Other jurisdictions do not recognize psychologists or neuropsychologists to determine medical causation. The present case, however, citing several precedents, recognizes their competence. The brief is advocating a position that psychologists and neuropsychologists are competent to determine medical causation and can testify on matters falling within their expertise. Expertise can be gained through knowledge, experience, skill and education. Landers case will definitely have an impact in future cases involving similar issues and will serve as a strong precedent. In this case, several cases cited strengthened the position advocated by the Commission. As a trier of fact, the Commission has the discretion which evidence to accord weight to assist in determination of the issues. The case also addressed the issue on the rule on evidence which would render a record or testimony inadmissible. Although the Landers case will serve as a strong precedent to similar cases, every case is not squarely similar to another. Each case has to be litigated in court based on its own merits. A case might have other issues that will be decided in the negative by trier of fact. Despite the fact that Landers case provided a guideline on forensic psychology, it may not make similar cases easier or difficult to win in court. Every case has to be argued on its own and fought on its own merits. References American Board of Forensic Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2006, from http://www.abfp.com/ Landers v. Chrysler Corporation, 963 S.W. 2d Mo. App. (1998) [Online] Available: http://0-web.lexis-nexis.com.novacat.nova.edu/universe/document?_m= 5fa038c540cfaa68 Psychology Information Online. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://www.psychologyinfo.com/forensic/ Read More