2000 suplement 4


Volume 9, suplement 4

On the cover

Discrepancies between forensic-psychiatric and forensic-medical opinions on post-traumatic consequences

1. Katedry i Zakładu Medycyny Sądowej Śląskiej Akademii Medycznej w Katowicach
Postępy Psychiatrii i Neurologii, 2000, suplement 4 (12), 121-128
Keywords: forensic-psychiatric opinions, forensic-medical opinions


The authors try to explain the differencesin opinion on the consequences of headin jury which arise between psychiatrists, neurologistsand forensic medical professionals. He doesso on the basis of examples selected from the documentationof the Department of Forensic Medicinein Katowice. Earlier opinions had been rejected asinvalid when they had been checked for observanceof the rules offorensic-medical expertise in suchcases, i.e., compatibility of opinion, correct evaluationof cause-effect relations, reaching well-motivatedconclusions from examinations, and theunderstanding and practical application of code formulations. Our analyses revealed the followingmajor sources of error in opinions issued by psychiatristsand neurologists: (1) unjustified andunmotivated indication that concussion, post-traumaticcerebrasthenia or even post-traumatic encephalopathyare the consequence of the injury,(2) ignorance of the basic rules of expertise,(3) ignorance of the penal code, (4) prematureissuing of unequivocal opinions concerning the durationof organ dysfunction and permanent consequencesof the injury, (5) lack of personal examinationof the injured person.

Address for correspondence:
Dr Czesław Chowaniec, Katedra i Zakład Medycyny Sądowej Śląskiej Akademii Medycznej,
ul. Medyków 18, 40-752 Katowice