Social Links

Follow on Facebook Follow on TwitterFollow EiR on PinterestFollow EiR on Instagram

Xpert Access

×

Login To Get Involved!


Forgot your username?


Forgot your password?

×

Join Us At EiR Now!

DNRS Roof Banner

 

DNRS Interactive DVD Series & Seminars

The impact of judges perceptions of credibility in fibromyalgia claims

 

 

 

 

Int J Law Psychiatry. 2008 Jan 7 [Epub ahead of print]

 

The impact of judges' perceptions of credibility in fibromyalgia claims.

 

Le Page JA, Iverson GL, Collins P. University of British Columbia, Department of Psychiatry, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

 

 

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a confusing and controversial diagnosis, characterized by widespread pain and tenderness at specific anatomical sites. The cause of this syndrome is unknown, and the course of the condition is difficult to predict. Without a known cause, predictable course, or effective treatment, it is not surprising that FM is a contentious diagnosis from a medical perspective, as well as a civil litigation and disability insurance industry perspective. The purpose of this study was to investigate judges' perceptions of credibility in litigated cases involving FM claims in the Canadian courts, and the relation between perceived credibility and awards granted. A systematic review was conducted of every trial-by-judge litigated FM claim in Canada (N=194 cases) up to 2003. The cases were examined in relation to credibility factors. The role and responsibility of the plaintiff was central in claims involving issues of misrepresentation, fraud, non-disclosure, failure to mitigate, and contributory negligence. The presence of these issues suggested a possible decrease or loss in the claim as a result of the plaintiff's conduct. In regards to the actions of defendants, the presence of investigative and surveillance information alone did not affect the awards granted. However, the credibility of that information had a large effect on the amount of award granted. Plaintiff credibility played a similar role, indicating that plaintiffs perceived as more credible were typically granted greater awards. An examination of medical expert credibility revealed that judges appear to perceive experts as more credible overall than plaintiffs, regardless of the expert's role in the case.

 

PMID: 18191454 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

 

 

 

{mosgoogle}

 

{mos_sb_discuss:9}

 


 

 

Related Articles:

 

Home Water Filters:
 

50% Off Aquasana Filtration Systems

ADVERTISEMENT

 

  • No comments found

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0 Character restriction
Your text should be more than 25 characters
Your comments are subjected to administrator's moderation.
terms and condition.

Adsense Responsive BottomBanner