Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:23:12.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing for psychiatric injury and ‘nervous shock’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Nigel Eastman
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There is no direct coherence between medical and legal concepts or between medical and legal ways of thinking (Eastman, 1992). As a result, there are often substantial difficulties in translating the findings of one (medicine) into the decisions of the other (law). In order to minimise interdisciplinary confusion, it is necessary for each to have an understanding of the approach of the other. This paper attempts to elucidate the relationship between law and psychiatry as it is played out specifically in personal injury litigation and in relation to civil legal claims for (legal) ‘nervous shock’. It is not confined solely to claims arising out of the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Eastman, 1995; Napier, 1995), but is applicable to any psychiatric sequelae of events for which legal liability of a defendant can be established. It also offers general comments about the provision of civil psycho-legal assessments, advice and opinion writing (Carson et al, 1993) as a backcloth to its more specific purpose.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment , Volume 1 , Issue 6 , July 1995 , pp. 154 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 1995 

References

Alcock and Others v. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (1991) 4 ALL ER at p. 907.Google Scholar
Bournhill v. Young (1943) AC 92.Google Scholar
Carson, D., Eastman, N. L. G., Gudjonsson, G. et al (1993) Psychiatric reports for legal purposes in the United Kingdom. In Forensic Psychiatry: Clinical, Legal & Ethical Issues (eds Gunn, J. & Taylor, P. J.) pp. 826–856. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Chadwick v. The British Transport Commission (1967) 2 ALL ER 945, Subnom Chadwick v. British Railways Board (1967) 1 WLR 912Google Scholar
Eastman, N. (1992) Psychiatric, psychological and legal models of man. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 15, 157–169.Google Scholar
Eastman, N. (1995) Clinical assessment of stress disorders for legal purposes. In Psychological Trauma: a Developmental Approach (eds Black, D., Newman, M., Mezey, G. et al). London: Gaskell. (In press)Google Scholar
Malcolm v. Broadhurst (1970) 3 ALL ER 508.Google Scholar
McLoughlin v. O'Brian (1982) 2 ALLER 298, (1983) 1 AC 410, (1982) 2 WLR 982, HL; rvsg (1981)1 ALLER 809, (1981) QB 599, (1981) 2 WLR 1014, CA.Google Scholar
Napier, M. (1995) Civil law and psychiatric injury. In Psychological Trauma: a Developmental Approach (eds Black, D., Newman, M., Mezey, G. et al). London: Gaskell. (In press)Google Scholar
Phelan v. East Cumbria Health Authority (1991) 2 MED LR 419.Google Scholar
Whitmore and another v. Euroways Express Coaches Limited and Others (1984), The Times Law Report, 4th May.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.