Psychiatry Malpractice and Administrative Inquiries of Alleged Physician Misconduct

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2006.04.005Get rights and content

Section snippets

The Four Elements of Medical Malpractice

Though in casual English use malpractice may be hyperbole for poor medical care, in a court of law malpractice is an allegation of negligent injury of one individual by another in which specific legal elements are also demonstrably present. The legal concept of negligence is a descendent of English common law; it establishes a general, minimum standard of prudent conduct between citizens. That standard, a legal term of art known as the standard of care, requires that individuals conduct

Standards for Expert Witnesses and Their Testimony

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) provides for the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony at trial:

“If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”

Fact witnesses are limited to testimony about events that they have perceived directly

Malpractice When There is More Than One Clinician: Split Treatment, Supervision, and Use of Other Mental Health Professionals

All of the malpractice considerations thus far have presumed a single psychiatric practitioner. Malpractice litigation involving mental health care from multiple clinicians raises special issues in clarifying the respective duty and standard of care of each individual.

Split treatment, also known as collaborative treatment, refers to outpatient mental health care that is contemporaneously provided by a psychiatrist and one or more mental health colleagues, colleagues who typically are

Allegations of Physician Misconduct: Administrative and Ethical Investigations

In malpractice litigation, a plaintiff alleges that negligent conduct by the defendant directly caused harm. Outside of civil litigation, however, practicing psychiatrists still may face liability risks from allegations of professional misconduct reported to a panoply of medical agencies that have oversight authority over the conduct of physicians. The agencies include state medical boards, ethics committees of state and national medical societies and the quality and credentialing committees of

Summary

Practicing psychiatrists face a range of professional liability from malpractice litigation and from inquiries and hearings conducted by health care agencies. The causes of an action and the standards by which physician conduct is measured vary widely between these two processes. Many psychiatrists do not appreciate sufficiently the gravity of the risks they may face from an administrative sanction. Understanding the legal and administrative expectations of practicing psychiatrists serves

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Stephen Behnke, PhD, JD, for his helpful suggestions, his textual revisions, and his protecting the author from opining about the law without benefit of legal counsel. The author would like to thank Dr. Robert Simon for his review of the manuscript and his thoughtful suggestions and encouragement. The author would also like to thank Noreen O'Connor for her editorial assistance.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (36)

  • D.J. Meyer et al.

    Psychiatric malpractice and the standard of care in textbook of forensic psychiatry

  • Germain v. Pfeifer, 418 Mass. 511 August 3,...
  • Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 13 Cal 3d 177, 118 Cal Rptr 129, 529 P2d 553 (1974), reargued, 17...
  • Massachusetts General Law, c123...
  • General guidelines related to the maintenance of boundaries in the practice of psychotherapy by physicians (adult...
  • Schrader v. Kohout, 522 S.E.2nd 19 Ga. App....
  • G.B. Melton

    Psychological evaluation for the courts

    (1997)
  • D.W. Schuman

    Persistent reexperiences in psychiatry and law: current and future trends in posttraumatic stress disorder litigation in posttraumatic stress disorder in litigation: guidelines for assessment

  • Federal Rules of Evidence...
  • American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

    Ethical guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry

    (2005)
  • Frye v. United States, 392 F. 1013 (DC Cir....
  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579...
  • General Electric v. Robert K. Joiner, 522 US 136...
  • Kumho Tire Company, LTD. v. Patrick Carmichael, 526 US 137...
  • General Electric v. Robert K. Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997) at...
  • Kumho Tire Company, LTD. v. Patrick Carmichael, 526 US 137 (1999) at...
  • Kumho Tire Company, LTD. v. Patrick Carmichael, 526 US 137 (1999) at...
  • D.J. Meyer et al.

    Psychiatric malpractice and the standard of care

  • Cited by (14)

    • Medical Malpractice: Psychiatry

      2015, Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine: Second Edition
    • Restoring professionalism: The physician fitness-for-duty evaluation

      2013, General Hospital Psychiatry
      Citation Excerpt :

      To our knowledge, this report is the first to describe findings and remedial recommendations for physician subjects referred for fitness-for-duty (FFD) evaluation following the 2005 American Psychiatric Association guidelines [3]. Interested readers are referred to other sources [4–9] describing the standards and practices for evaluation of physicians, but little data on the comprehensive FFD evaluation of physicians have been published. In this article, we describe the results of preliminary analysis of data accumulated conducting physician FFD evaluations using a standardized comprehensive assessment methodology at our center over 10 years.

    • Peer review and psychiatric physician fitness for duty evaluations: Analyzing the past and forecasting the future

      2012, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
      Citation Excerpt :

      Forensic psychiatric examiners have a role in the administrative law of peer review that is in many ways analogous to an expert witness in civil and criminal proceedings. Experts serve the trier of fact, in this case the peer review organization, about matters beyond its expertise (Meyer, 2006). At the end of the day, the examiner, through the report, consultation and testimony, is an educator to the peer review body about the psychiatric knowledge applied to questions which the peer review body asked.

    • Patients' rights to complain in Finnish psychiatric care: An overview

      2009, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
    • Geriatric psychiatry

      2022, Malpractice and Liability in Psychiatry
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text