More complex litigation may present numerous plaintiffs asserting emotional injury. Unique to such cases is the range of effects different individuals might experience from the same event or stressor. Each claim must be considered on a case-by-case basis, without contamination from the results of other examinations. Cases in which psychiatrists examine large numbers of claimants may prompt that examiner to prejudice his findings by comparing the experience of one examinee to another. Such comparisons move an assessment away from psychiatric criteria and to criteria based upon the examiner’s experience. Best practices allow for cases to be appreciated for their merit in a vacuum.
For this reason, The Forensic Panel does not assign one psychiatrist to examine many plaintiffs. There are numerous highly qualified forensic psychiatrists in The Forensic Panel, so there is available expertise to have different cases examined in parallel, allowing for each examiner to listen to claimants with a clean slate. When one reviews the credentials of members of The Forensic Panel, one can appreciate his practice as the finest collection of clinicians ever assembled in one practice. This collection of talent ensures that each case gains the same quality of expertise, in a peer review system that ensures a consistent highest integrity to forensic psychiatry assessment.
In addition, the complexity of multiple claimant litigation invariably demands that different testing and different specialists are needed for different cases. Complex litigation benefits greatly from the diversity of specialists of The Forensic Panel, enabling the dexterity of expertise to engage matters of any degree of evolving complexity. The Forensic Panel, furthermore, has the administrative quality control so crucial to coordinating multiple examinations and structured deadlines, without compromising the substance and individuality of the examinations.
In our experience, the rigor of The Forensic Panel’s examination promotes realistic assessment by the attorneys involved as to who is likely manifest any emotional distress. The realistic cost-benefit analysis expedites the fair resolution of cases and is one other reason why all of the The Forensic Panel’s civil personal injury case work has settled or been dismissed before reaching a jury. Undeniably, the role of The Forensic Panel’s peer review in ensuring that evaluations conform to standards of the field also cements the impact of our evaluations’ conclusions as the last word.