Glossary
Abulia
Affect
Anterograde Amnesia
Autonomic Nervous System
Class action lawsuits Are a tool for consumers to protect against actions of large corporations that harm a large group or "class" of people. In a class action lawsuit a representative, who proves that it is typical of the "class" that has brought the lawsuit, can prove and settle their own claims as well as the claims of the entire class. Class action lawsuits are brought when a corporation has been found to knowingly sell harmful products, engage in illegal business practices, or use false information to sell products or services to a large group. Employees of large corporations can also use this form of lawsuit to sue for discriminatory practices or violation of employment agreements on a large scale.
Caput Succedaneum One of the most common birth injuries that can happen as a result of pregnancy complications, labor and delivery. Caput succedaneum (sometimes referred as just caput) is a scalp hemorrhage that occurs to a fetus during a head first delivery, and can result in bruising and moulding of the infant scalp.
Caput succedaneum is diagnosed through physical examination of the newborn’s head, so no additional medical testing is required. Common indications of this type of birth injury may include the following: * Puffy, soft swelling of the scalp Swelling generally occurs in the portion of the head that initially pushes through the vaginal wall during delivery, but can occur on any portion of the scalp. Jaundice is a complication of caput succedaneum that can occur as a result of bruising breaking down on the scalp.
Caput succedaneum is commonly caused by pressure from the vaginal wall or uterus during labor. This birth injury is more likely to occur during difficult or prolonged deliveries, and is more common during deliveries that include vacuum extraction, a technique that is used by a doctor to help a fetus move through the birth canal. Caput succedaneum can more rarely occur before childbirth as the result of a premature rupture of membranes in the uterus, but caput succedaneum is most common as a birth injury during the labor and delivery process.
Birth injury, Birth trauma, refers to any damage an infant sustains during the birthing process due to forces like compression or traction, or factors that restrict blood flow or oxygen
Gender Differences Female and Male Brain Differences
Forensic Psychology The application of psychological principles and knowledge to various legal activities. Together, Forensic Psychology and Legal Psychology form the area commonly known as "Psychology and Law." Typical forensic psychology issues include child custody disputes, child abuse or neglect, assessing personal capacity to manage one's affairs, matters of competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, personal injury, and advising judges in matters relating to sentencing regarding various litigants and the actuarial assessment of future risk.
Insanity Defense as a defense by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill at the time of their allegedly criminal actions. It is important to note that the legal definition of "insane" in this context is quite different from the psychiatric definitions of "mentally ill". Also, the definition of insanity varies from one jurisdiction to another. The forensic psychologist’s role is to evaluate whether the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the offense, whether there was premeditation to commit the offense and/or whether the defendant knew the consequences of their actions. The insanity defense is still in use in the United States, while Australia and Canada have renamed it the mental disorder defense, as Commonwealth nations tend to shy away from it, partially due to the stigma of the word "insanity"[citation needed]. In England and Wales, for instance, the use of this defense is fairly rare. It is more common for someone with a mental illness to use the fact that they were mentally ill at the time of the offense as mitigation (which is distinct from a complete defense, which is what insanity is), or to use their mental state at the time of the trial to alter their sentence if found guilty (That is, once found guilty they receive an order committing them to a hospital rather than a prison sentence). When insanity is used, the person may still receive a hospital order.
In the wake of the 1975 adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Malpractice Is a professional's failure to use minimally adequate levels of care, skill or diligence in the performance of the professional's duties, causing harm to another. In New York, attorney malpractice is defined as a "deviation from good and accepted legal practice, where the client has been proximately damaged by that deviation, but for which, there would have been a different, better or more positive outcome." Malpractice typically occurs when a professional fails to exercise his or her professional skills in an assignment at the necessary standard of care, skill and learning applied under the circumstances by the average prudent reputable member of the profession in the "community". The analysis is based upon the standard of care for the professional in the community" what other professionals in the same field do for their clients who are located in the same geographic area. In New York, courts will hold all attorneys to the same standard of professional performance. The first necessary element is a professional relationship. In order to sue for professional malpractice, the plaintiff must have retained the attorney. There must of course be a relationship in privity, between the professional and the plaintiff such that the professional owes the plaintiff a duty. In attorney malpractice either a written retainer, proof that the attorney engaged in work or proof that the attorney appeared for the client is necessary. While in litigation often there is clear proof of representation; in transactional settings, representation may be less clear. Proof to a jury's satisfaction of actual representation must be demonstrated. This proof may come from the correspondence of the professional, from papers authored by the attorney or from litigation documents.
Medical Malpractice An act or omission by a health care provider which deviates from accepted standards of practice in the medical community and which causes injury to the patient. Simply put, medical malpractice is professional negligence (by a healthcare provider) that causes an injury. In the United States and other countries, a specific medical malpractice law has developed. In English law, the issue of liability is a subset of professional negligence where, under the Bolam Test, a doctor will be liable unless shown to have acted in accordance with a reasonable body of medical opinion. In Australia, this test has been replaced but the principles are comparable.
Mental Health A term used to describe either a level of cognitive or emotional wellbeing or an absence of a mental disorder. From perspectives of the discipline of positive psychology or holism mental health may include an individual's ability to enjoy life, procure a balance between life activities, and efforts to achieve psychological resilience. The World Health Organization states that there is no one "official" definition of mental health. Cultural differences, subjective assessments, and competing professional theories all affect how "mental health" is defined. The role of a forensic psychologist in regards to a person’s mental health is to evaluate in an independent (non-advocacy) role the plaintiff’s status post incident. That is, to determine if the incident which the defendant has allegedly been responsible for has caused temporal or permanent damage to the plaintiff’s emotional well being.
Partial Bibliography in Eye Witness Research
Psychological Tests Not all but some psychologists use tests in their evaluations. However, only some of the tests are valid for a forensic analysis. Psychometrics, test construction, personality theory are some of the areas that need to be considered before selecting the test for the plaintiff.
Reasonable certainty In a 1998 Maryland Law Review article, Jeff L. Lewin (a Pennsylvania attorney and an adjunct professor of law at Widener University) makes a convincing case that the practice of asking medical experts to state their opinions to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” was first adopted by the Chicago trial bar, sometime before 1930, in specific response to distinct features of the local legal ecology. See generally Jeff L. Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About “Reasonable Medical Certainty,” 57 Md. L. Rev. 380 (1998).
Whatever its actual current meaning in the jurisdictions still adhering to it, the requirement that expert testimony reflect a “reasonable degree” of medical, professional, or scientific “certainty” might hypothetically assume any of multiple forms. The rule might require the witnesses themselves to attest that their opinions are held to a “reasonable degree of certainty.” It might condition admissibility on a judicial determination that their testimony is of RDC caliber. It might make RDC a part of the sufficiency calculus. Or it might combine some or all of those requirements:
Scientific Evidence The Federal Rules of Evidence have been established for the federal courts with the U. S. Supreme Court decisions in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire. These three cases are sometimes considered as the Daubert Trilogy. The implications for expert witness testimony is significant as the testimony must now be based upon empirically established research and not merely upon ipse dixit opinion.
Workplace Violence and Workplace Aggression: Evidence Concerning Specific Forms, Potential Causes, and Preferred Targets – Neuman and Baron
The Nature and Scope of Workplace Violence Aggression occurs at three levels:
Workplace Violence and Workplace Aggression: Evidence Concerning Specific Forms, Potential Causes, and Preferred Targets – Neuman and Baron - Behind Closed Doors, Barling, Rogers, Kelloway Sexual harassment and Violence are likely to co-occur. If one is tolerated by an organization the other is likely to be tolerated. First, the indirect predictive effects of sexual harassment and workplace violence are demonstrated, and the mediating roles of fear and negative mood are identified. Second, the findings show that workplace violence and sexual harassment, although theoretically distinct constructs, empirically co-occur in the study context (i.e., the provision of home-based care). From the perspective of the victims and with respect to the outcomes investigated in this study, both forms of abusive behaviors may play similar roles in predicting hypothesized outcomes.
|
