(from FORENSIC NEWS - Winter 2000)
Forensic Section Annual Seminar Breaks New Ground
by Robert H. Taylor, MA, CRC, CDMS, CPC, CLCP

With over 140 attendees, the 1999 Forensic Section annual seminar in Las Vegas, NV offered the opportunity for valuable and extensive training in key areas confronted by vocational rehabilitation counselors and life care planners in their everyday practices. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael have had, and will have, considerable impact on our work in the future.

Nationally acclaimed jury consultant Hale Starr offered a stirring presentation on her courtroom experiences and the concerns of expert witnesses when presenting themselves before a jury. Ms. Starr "opened the eyes" of even the most seasoned trial witnesses. At times providing intense debate, Ms. Starr shed new light on the "real-world" problems we face when we walk in the courtroom. Even more significant was Ms. Starr’s suggestion that trial lawyers go to great lengths to prepare their cases and may thoroughly research the background, past performance and qualifications of expert witnesses. Her presentation left no doubt that the world of expert witness testimony goes far beyond what forensic rehabilitation experts may see in the course of their work.

Mississippi based trial attorney Niles Hooper left no doubt in anyone’s minds that Daubert and Kumho will have significant effects on the methods of practice by vocational rehabilitation experts and life care planners. Mr. Hooper clearly represents an expert’s worst nightmare; an attorney who has great expertise of the qualifications and methodologies employed by forensic rehabilitation practitioners and is prepared to exploit any weakness in defense of his client. One clear issue arose from Mr. Hooper’s presentation. Simply put, there is an ever-increasing need to develop and employ standards of practice and consistent methodologies by those offering vocational opinions and life care plans for consideration in a forensic setting. Without such standards and a "unified front" in establishing them, the viability of rehabilitation expert testimony is very much in doubt thanks to these court decisions. In short, the future of vocational and life care planning experts appears to be at a crossroads.

Louis Etcoff, Ph.D., a board-certified neuropsychologist from Las Vegas, NV and an expert in diagnosis of mild brain injury gave a very comprehensive and entertaining presentation that provided considerable insight into the evaluation of such cases. We were left with new ways of assessing these cases and what to look for in the specific psychological tests that might be used to diagnose mild brain injury. The inconsistencies that often exist in testing, their implication and ways of determining the veracity of the subject’s complaints were also addressed. Dr. Etcoff’s materials should be mandatory reading for any forensic rehabilitation professional who works with traumatic brain injury or who may be asked to address the concept of malingering.

Robert Taylor’s presentation concerning the impact of pre-existing conditions on earning capacity offered an approach not typically employed when assessing the earning capacity of an injured individual asserting a claim for damages in a civil case. While offering relatively advanced techniques for conducting earning capacity evaluations, even a newcomer to the field was able to learn how to address this very important area.

Mary Barros-Bailey’s ethics presentation left no doubts that there are many professional concerns faced by forensic rehabilitation practitioners that we may not have believed even existed. An expert in the field of ethics, Ms. Barros-Bailey was extremely effective in raising the level of consciousness in this area. In many cases, there will have to be changes made in the practice methods of those working in this field, lest they face the consequences imposed by professional associations that award certifications.

The wrap-up session featuring Forensic Section Past-Chair, Ann Neulicht, Ph.D., and current Chair, Randall Thomas, Ph.D., was quite successful in reinforcing the many issues and concerns raised throughout the seminar. As they emphasized, we are in changing times as forensic rehabilitation professionals, with the changes being mandated by court decisions such as Daubert and Kumho Tire. Those who work in this area must pay attention to how the field is changing and how practice methods must, too, change or be left behind.

The seminar brought all of these issues to the forefront and started the ball rolling towards enhancing the practice methods of forensic rehabilitation professionals. We have a long way to go, but thanks to the efforts of those in the Forensic Section who support training such as the seminar in Las Vegas, we are now marching along a path that can only result in our field gaining in credibility and recognition. Thanks to all who participated. I look forward to seeing you again in Las Vegas for the 2000 Annual Seminar!