Emotional Damages Episode 11 Recap: Dr. Ashley VanDercar on Malingering, Violence Risk Factors, and Attorney-Expert Collaboration
In this episode of Emotional Damages, Dr. Ambarin Faizi speaks with Dr. Ashley VanDercar, a forensic psychiatrist and attorney, whose dual training uniquely positions her at the crossroads of law and psychiatry. Together, they explore how attorneys and experts can collaborate to ensure forensic evaluations are not only clinically sound but legally precise.
Key Insights from the Episode
- Legal Context Is Essential for Expert Opinions
Dr. VanDercar highlights that forensic psychiatry exists at the intersection of medicine and law — and that experts cannot form their opinions in a legal vacuum. She encourages attorneys to provide the exact legal standard to their expert. Forensic experts, she explains, must tailor their analyses to fit within the legal framework that their opinion will be judged based on. - Collaboration Strengthens Expertise
Dr. VanDercar notes that effective collaboration begins with open communication and mutual education — attorneys educating experts about applicable laws and experts educating attorneys about psychiatric symptoms. A mutual understanding helps ensure that the expert’s opinion is both relevant and useful for the trier of fact. - Understanding Malingering in Forensic Evaluations
Dr. VanDercar explains that malingering, or feigning symptoms for a secondary gain (e.g., to avoid criminal prosecution or seek damages in litigation), encompasses a variety of behaviors. She describes three forms that can potentially be encountered:- Pure malingering, where non-existent symptoms are feigned for a secondary gain.
- Partial malingering, where bona fide symptoms are intentionally exaggerated for secondary gain.
- False imputation, where pre-existing or otherwise non-compensable symptoms are intentionally attributed to a compensable event.
- Recognizing these distinctions, she notes, is critical for experts tasked with diagnosing psychiatric injury in the context of litigation.
- Interpreting Psychiatric Symptoms in Litigation Requires Collateral Data
Dr. VanDercar explains why an evaluee’s symptoms cannot be assessed solely based on self-report. Reliable assessments integrate multiple layers of data — including comprehensive record reviews, clinical insights, and when applicable, psychological testing. She stresses the importance of using this data to evaluate for consistency. Specifically, exploring how reported symptoms fit (or do not fit) with past and present patterns. - Violence Risk Assessments
Dr. VanDercar also briefly discusses the topic of risk factors and violence risk assessments. This can be relevant in clinical practice, probate cases, and in malpractice reviews. She outlines the relevance of an individual’s history, diagnoses, situational stressors, and symptoms when assessing violence risk. - The Goal: Defensible, Transparent Opinions
Ultimately, Dr. VanDercar and Dr. Faizi stress that credible expert opinions are built at the intersection of clinical insights and legal precision. When attorneys clearly articulate the legal framework and experts provide objective, well-supported findings, judges and juries benefit from testimony that is both clinically precise and legally relevant.
Listen to the full episode now and subscribe to Emotional Damages wherever you get your podcasts.
Need a forensic psychiatrist’s expertise for a case that involves a question as to potential malingering?
Fpamed’s team includes board-certified forensic psychiatrists, psychologists and neuropsychologists with extensive experience across civil, criminal, and probate litigation.
📩 Contact fpamed to discuss your case today.
Listen, subscribe. and leave a review on:
Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Wherever You Get Your Podcast Fix
Need support for an ongoing or upcoming case? fpamed’s team of forensic psychiatrists and psychologists is here to help. Reach out to email hidden; JavaScript is required today for expert case support.