Malingering Versus Genuine Deficit in a Personal Injury Claim
Mr. K, 52, is the plaintiff in a civil suit following a low-speed rear-end collision (estimated impact 15 mph, no airbag deployment, vehicle drivable). He claims disabling cognitive impairment, cannot work as an accountant, and reports that he 'cannot remember anything since the crash.' He is 14 months post-injury. Neuroimaging is normal. He scores in the impaired range on several effort-sensitive measures and below chance on a forced-choice symptom validity test; his attorney has sent records showing he was terminated for cause three months before the collision. On interview, he is pleasant, gives vague answers, and repeatedly says 'I don't know, you tell me.' He brings his wife, who answers most questions for him. He is applying for disability benefits and is the sole financial support for three children.
1. How should the examiner integrate validity-test findings, collateral contradiction, and secondary-gain context into an opinion?
Read the worked answer
Each of these is a data point, not a verdict.
- Symptom validity/effort testing. Below-chance performance on a forced-choice measure is a strong indicator of non-credible performance, but it speaks to performance on that task, not to the absence of any impairment. It must be interpreted in the context of the full battery, the base rates in this population, and whether the measures were appropriately chosen.
- Collateral contradiction (termination predating the collision) undercuts the causal claim for lost earnings and is directly relevant to damages, but it does not by itself prove the cognitive complaints are fabricated.
- Secondary gain (litigation, disability application, financial pressure) is common and does not establish malingering; it is a context, not a diagnosis. Most claimants with incentives are not malingering.
The examiner should: describe the findings factually; distinguish malingering (intentional production of false or exaggerated symptoms for external gain, a DSM/clinical formulation) from factitious disorder (internal gain) and from genuine impairment with exaggeration; avoid asserting deception without convergent evidence; and be explicit about the limits of a single evaluation. The opinion should address the forensic question asked (e.g., whether the current presentation is consistent with the claimed injury) rather than opining broadly on character.
2. The retaining attorney asks you to state that Mr. K is 'malingering and lying.' How do you respond, and what belongs in the report?
Read the worked answer
Decline to adopt the attorney's characterization. Explain that the report will state findings and their limits, not the retaining party's preferred conclusion, and that an examiner who adopts a party's language compromises independence and credibility.
What belongs in the report:
- The data, described neutrally: normal imaging, inconsistency between claimed global amnesia and observed function, below-chance validity performance, collateral records, informant behavior.
- A reasoned formulation with differential: non-credible performance with likely external incentive; genuine impairment with exaggeration; cognitive disorder not otherwise supported; possible psychiatric contributors.
- Explicit uncertainty and the limits of the evaluation (single session, reliance on self-report, informant dynamics).
- Answers to the specific referral questions, with the basis for each.
What does not belong: moralizing language ('lying'), conclusions beyond the data, or opinions on the ultimate legal issue (e.g., 'the plaintiff should lose') that are the court's to decide.