‘Insuring’ a Correct Differential Diagnosis ‐ a ‘Forensic’ Collaborative Experience

Abstract

Mr. J was referred to a speech and language therapist (SLT) by a consultant psychiatrist. He had sustained an industrial accident which he claimed was responsible for a range of problems which included a speech and language problem. Some three years after his accident, he brought an action for damages arising out of the accident. His solicitor, on the recommendation of the consultant psychiatrist, contacted the SLT requesting his views as to whether Mr. J's speech difficulties were due to the injuries sustained and requesting recommendations for further treatment. The SLT saw Mr. J and concluded that he had problems at all communication levels, the greatest being an articulatory impairment. Some reports suggested a psychological basis for his problems and others, including the psychiatrists', suggested an organic basis.

Non-credible language deficits following mild traumatic brain injury

“…In a final case of non-credible language symptoms, Abudarham and White (2001) describe an English litigant who sued in the context of a work-related accident that did not result in loss of consciousness or anterograde or retrograde amnesia and in whom brain imaging was normal. The patient subsequently reported various cognitive deficits as well as aggressiveness and inability to control his temper, for which he sought psychiatric hospitalization.…”