PSY 545
EGGVSHELL DEFENDANT VFINAL PAPER
PSY 545
Southern New Hampshire University
Kathy Hall, a 32-year-old woman, was diagnosed with clinical depression after her first
severe depression episode when she was 14 years old. Following this episode were several
others, with the most recent one occurring a year ago. Ms. Hall takes antidepressants, in order to
prevent another episode from occurring. She obtained no more than a high-school education and
last worked at a minimum wage job but is now unemployed. Once a week she volunteers at her
community library. Recently, the library started renovation and Ms. Hall had been helping out.
One day when Ms. Hall was helping at the library, a city employee put a caustic cleaner in a
pitcher, the cleaner being typically used to remove glue and paint from surfaces. Unbeknownst to
Ms. Hall, she poured some of the cleaner in a glass for a child, and the child suffered burns
starting in their mouth and continuing down their throat.
the city was sued and the family was awarded a large amount of money. Post-accident, Ms. Hall
started experiencing an episode of clinical depression, since she blamed herself for the accident
that occured. The city is allowed to seek compensation from any individual whose actions cause
the city to experience significant financial loss, leading them to sue Ms. Hall. However, due to
Ms. Halls mental illness and her background; the lawsuit and reliving the experience causesher
further emotional damage. The forensic psychologist on the case is then asked to perform a
personal injury evaluation on Kathy.
The forensic psychologist will have to keep a few things in mind while completing their
assessmentofKathy.Oneissuethatmaybechallengingis the questioning by the court of a valid and
reliable assessment used to determine one's mental health. An example of it’s reliability is if
“someone who suffers from depression should obtain a similar score across multiple
, administrations of a psychological test designed to assess depression,” but, if the scores come
back different, or do not line up, it can lead to the validity of the assessment to be jeopardized
(Huss, 2014). This could cause the authority of the assessment to be called into question, since
the measurements are not consistent. Another issue that could be faced during the evaluation, is
the presentation of the client's mental illness that is being assessed. Possibly due to Kathy's
depression and/or high-school education level, she may not understand what is being asked of
her during her evaluation of her depression episode. Her competence could be lacking due to
these factors affecting the state of her mind. Depression, often, can affect memory, and could
cause trouble with competency, anxiety, and a lack of clear thoughts. Kathy's mental state could
prevent her from remembering the details of what happened that day.
The harm that Kathy suffered can be described as the emotional distress of the incident
she was involved in, due to the lack of verbal communication between the city worker and
herself. This situation caused Kathy to believe it was her fault that the child received injuries.
The situation triggered a severe clinical depression episode in Kathy. The harm Kathy suffered is
emotional/psychological distress. The standard for the compensable damage should be evaluated
with a test known as the “but for test.” The “but for test” which is rooted in the idea of ” but for
the existence of X, would Y have occurred?” is a standard method to determine who is at fault in
a given situation. The evaluation being conducted needs to happen in a clinic interview style for
collection of information. The questions that need to be asked regarding the emotional harm she
has experienced include questions such as “If the child was not injured, would you have
experienced a depressive episode?” and “Were you medicated when this episode occurred?”
Forensically relevant instruments “measure specific legal standards and reflect the focus on
EGGVSHELL DEFENDANT VFINAL PAPER
PSY 545
Southern New Hampshire University
Kathy Hall, a 32-year-old woman, was diagnosed with clinical depression after her first
severe depression episode when she was 14 years old. Following this episode were several
others, with the most recent one occurring a year ago. Ms. Hall takes antidepressants, in order to
prevent another episode from occurring. She obtained no more than a high-school education and
last worked at a minimum wage job but is now unemployed. Once a week she volunteers at her
community library. Recently, the library started renovation and Ms. Hall had been helping out.
One day when Ms. Hall was helping at the library, a city employee put a caustic cleaner in a
pitcher, the cleaner being typically used to remove glue and paint from surfaces. Unbeknownst to
Ms. Hall, she poured some of the cleaner in a glass for a child, and the child suffered burns
starting in their mouth and continuing down their throat.
the city was sued and the family was awarded a large amount of money. Post-accident, Ms. Hall
started experiencing an episode of clinical depression, since she blamed herself for the accident
that occured. The city is allowed to seek compensation from any individual whose actions cause
the city to experience significant financial loss, leading them to sue Ms. Hall. However, due to
Ms. Halls mental illness and her background; the lawsuit and reliving the experience causesher
further emotional damage. The forensic psychologist on the case is then asked to perform a
personal injury evaluation on Kathy.
The forensic psychologist will have to keep a few things in mind while completing their
assessmentofKathy.Oneissuethatmaybechallengingis the questioning by the court of a valid and
reliable assessment used to determine one's mental health. An example of it’s reliability is if
“someone who suffers from depression should obtain a similar score across multiple
, administrations of a psychological test designed to assess depression,” but, if the scores come
back different, or do not line up, it can lead to the validity of the assessment to be jeopardized
(Huss, 2014). This could cause the authority of the assessment to be called into question, since
the measurements are not consistent. Another issue that could be faced during the evaluation, is
the presentation of the client's mental illness that is being assessed. Possibly due to Kathy's
depression and/or high-school education level, she may not understand what is being asked of
her during her evaluation of her depression episode. Her competence could be lacking due to
these factors affecting the state of her mind. Depression, often, can affect memory, and could
cause trouble with competency, anxiety, and a lack of clear thoughts. Kathy's mental state could
prevent her from remembering the details of what happened that day.
The harm that Kathy suffered can be described as the emotional distress of the incident
she was involved in, due to the lack of verbal communication between the city worker and
herself. This situation caused Kathy to believe it was her fault that the child received injuries.
The situation triggered a severe clinical depression episode in Kathy. The harm Kathy suffered is
emotional/psychological distress. The standard for the compensable damage should be evaluated
with a test known as the “but for test.” The “but for test” which is rooted in the idea of ” but for
the existence of X, would Y have occurred?” is a standard method to determine who is at fault in
a given situation. The evaluation being conducted needs to happen in a clinic interview style for
collection of information. The questions that need to be asked regarding the emotional harm she
has experienced include questions such as “If the child was not injured, would you have
experienced a depressive episode?” and “Were you medicated when this episode occurred?”
Forensically relevant instruments “measure specific legal standards and reflect the focus on
