Legal, 2014 As of 1 Feb 2014.

Malpractice Q. What degree of evidence is needed to decide malpractice suits?

Malpractice Ans. Preponderance of the evidence. [Basically, much less than criminal cases, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Only 51% of the evidence supports a verdict to decide a malpractice case.]

Hendricks v. Kansas Q. Hendricks v. Kansas applied to what?

Hendricks v. Kansas Ans. Supreme Court decision that endorsed Kansas policy to transfer dangerous sex offenders to psychiatric hospitals on expiration of their prison sentence. {117 S. Ct (1997)}

National Data Bank Q. What can lead a physician to be listed on the National Data Bank?

National Data Bank Ans. A hospital, healthcare organization, APA, etc. takes a disciplinary action against the physician, for a penalty period of more than 30 days. Thus, in theory, at least, if you are suspended by your hospital until your discharge records are completed, they would not report you if you got them completed in a month. Ref: Sadock & Kaplan’s Synopsis

Tarasoff I Q. Basically, Tarasoff I requires?

Tarasoff I Ans. A duty to warn a potential victim when you are treating a pt who you find has plans to harm someone specifically. [1976. A California decision, so does not pertain to all states. The “I” may not be part of the question.]

Tarasoff II Q. What is Tarasoff II?

Tarasoff II Ans. Not only to warn, but to take actions to protect the potential victim. [California decision of 1982, so does not pertain to all states.]

Right of privileged Q. The right of privileged communication is a right that belongs to whom?

Right of privilege Ans. The pt. Sadock & Kaplan

Rouse v. Cameron Q. What was the Rouse v. Cameron decision about?

Rouse v. Cameron Ans. First, 1966, right to treatment decision. Only pertains to the District of Columbia.

Other Right to Treatment Decisions Q. Name two other major right to treatment decisions, one in Alabama, 1971, and one before the Supreme Court, 1976?

Other Right to Treatment Decisions Ans. 1971, Wyatt v. Stickney 1976, O.Connor v. Donaldson

Lake v. Cameron Q. What was the Lake v. Cameron decision about?

Lake v. Cameron Ans. First “least restrictive setting,” a federal decision that only pertained to DC, Decision said that one could not place a pt into a hospital involuntarily until it has been shown that a least restrictive alternative was not available.

battery Q. Legally, what is battery?

battery Ans. For physicians, touching a pt before the pt has agreed to be touched. Sadock and Kaplan.

Types of Witnesses Q. What are the two types of witnesses in the court that pertain to psychiatrists?

Types of Witnesses Ans. Fact Witness: What one saw of heard, not rending an opinion. Includes reading a medical record to the court so that the court has that info. Expert Witness: Can draw conclusions, such as the patient is dangerous to self or others.

Competency to Stand Trial Q. Supreme Court, Dusky v. United States, set standard for determining competency to stand trial. Roughly, what was the wording?

Competency to Stand Trial Ans. The person “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding – and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceeding against him.”

NGBRI Q. What is the Model Penal Code’s wording as to a person being found nor guilty of by reason of insanity?

NGBRI Ans. “People are not responsible for criminal conduct, if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental illness or defect, they lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of their conduct OR See next screen

NGBRI [continued] Or to inform their conduct to the requirement of the law.” {These two are sometimes referred to as “two pronged,” with some authorities wanting to eliminate the second. States vary in their wording, but most are close to this. Not all states allow NGBRI.]

DSM-IV and DSM-5 Position Q. DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5’ s position on use of DSMs in forensic issudes?

DSM-IV and DSM-5 Position Ans. Both contain cautionary statements. DSM-5’s wording is close to: The fact that a condition is in DSM-5 does not imply that the individual meets the legal requirement for a legal standard, such as criminal responsibility or disability.