Not just malingering: syndrome diagnosis in traumatic brain injury litigation

When patients present with syndromes we mistrust or misunderstand, clinician are often quick to make a determination of malingering. However, the use of malingering as a default diagnosis neglects a variety of clinical possibilities that may be relevant for treatment and forensic disposition. In neuropsychology, the growing use of a malingering diagnosis has recently been fueled by the increasingly adversarial nature of forensic brain injury litigation in which the goal is often less to provide an objective evaluation of cognition and personality as to brand all personal injury claimants as manipulative frauds. Less maliciously, but still disturbing, neuropsychologists whose knowledge base and clinical experience involves mainly the administration and scoring of psychometric tests may ignorantly, if innocently, overlook alternative diagnoses and syndromes that their education and training have ill-prepared them to recognize. And some patients do indeed malinger, and it is important to identify them, if only to spare legitimately injured claimants from being tarred with the same brush. This paper describes some of the syndromes that may present in clinical and forensic practice with brain-injured patients. It is to be considered a first step toward a practice model of neuropsychology that encourages the role of knowledge and clinical judgement in guiding the meaningful clinical interpretation of tests and measures.