Citation

Mann AM, Gold EM. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1966; 95(26): 1359-1363.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1966, Canadian Medical Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

5928535

PMCID

PMC1935885

Abstract

LITIGATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY FOLLOWING ACCIDENTAL TRAUMA IS AN EXPENSIVE AND CONFUSED PROCESS INVOLVING THREE PROTAGONISTS: patient, doctor and lawyer. Although post-traumatic conditions can be elaborately classified, the intrinsic validity of such classifications is often questionable. Current methods of evaluating psychological sequelae of accidental injury are inaccurate and unsatisfactory, partly because of the protagonists' conceptual, motivational and semantic differences. In addition, there is no really satisfactory method of (a) determining and quantifying minor but significant degrees of brain damage, (b) distinguishing these from "post-traumatic neurosis", or (c) determining the relationship between the trauma and subsequent disturbance of function. Increasingly "expert" advice is solicited but owing to the nature of the data and conditions of examination, such advice does little to clarify the underlying problems. Furthermore, doctors are often unable to communicate effectively to the judiciary just how the trauma has affected the patient. Even though certain suggestions for improvement are advanced, the need for comprehensive, longitudinal research is inescapable.

Language: en