We review relevant medical and mental health records alongside clinical interviews and standardized testing. We examine functioning before and after the event, including changes in emotional well-being, work, relationships, and daily activities.
Personal injury psychological evaluations assess psychological injury, causation, and functional impairment. Our forensic psychologists provide objective, evidence-based findings to help attorneys and courts understand the psychological impact of an alleged injury.
Personal injury psychological evaluations examine the emotional and psychological effects of an injury or traumatic event. They assess symptoms, changes in daily functioning, and treatment needs, while considering the person’s history and other factors that may contribute to their difficulties.
Personal injury psychological evaluations provide an independent opinion about the nature and extent of psychological harm and its relationship to the event in question.
The effects of an injury can reach far beyond physical recovery. Anxiety, depression, trauma symptoms, and changes in sleep, relationships, or work can disrupt daily life. A psychological evaluation helps clarify these difficulties and assess how they relate to the injury or event.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, we provide thorough, objective evaluations of emotional distress and psychological injury. We integrate interviews, records, and standardized testing to examine symptoms, prior functioning, and changes over time. Our personal injury psychological evaluations explain the evidence supporting our conclusions, address relevant limitations, and provide clear findings for attorneys and others involved in the case.
Learn more about personal injury psychological evaluations here.
We discuss the injury or event, relevant history, and reported changes in emotional well-being and daily life. This helps define the questions the personal injury evaluation needs to address.
We use clinical interviews and standardized testing to assess psychological symptoms, response validity, and functional impact. We examine how reported difficulties affect work, relationships, and daily activities.
We review relevant medical and mental health records and speak with others when appropriate. These sources help clarify functioning before and after the event and identify other contributing factors.
We prepare a report explaining the findings, their relationship to the event, and relevant limitations. Our conclusions address psychological harm, functional impact, and treatment needs to inform the legal case.
Understanding psychological injury requires careful attention to the person’s experience, the available evidence, and other possible explanations. Our evaluations bring these sources together to develop balanced, well-supported conclusions.
We review relevant medical and mental health records alongside clinical interviews and standardized testing. We examine functioning before and after the event, including changes in emotional well-being, work, relationships, and daily activities.
We assess psychological symptoms, response validity, and the relationship between reported difficulties and the event. We consider preexisting conditions, other stressors, and alternative explanations to develop an independent, balanced opinion.
Our reports explain the nature and extent of psychological difficulties, their functional impact, and relevant treatment needs. We distinguish reported experiences from supported findings and clearly describe the reasoning and limitations behind our conclusions.
Professional resource: Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology from the American Psychological Association.
Personal injury psychological evaluations require more than clinical assessment expertise. They demand an understanding of the scientific, methodological, and legal considerations that shape how psychological evidence is evaluated in civil litigation. At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists integrate evidence-based assessment practices with an understanding of applicable legal standards to provide objective, scientifically defensible opinions. The following sections explore key considerations in psychological injury evaluations, including causation, response validity, functional impairment, expert testimony, and relevant Utah case law.
Determining whether an incident caused or exacerbated a psychological condition is among the most complex issues in personal injury litigation. A psychological diagnosis alone does not establish causation, and the emergence of symptoms following an incident does not necessarily demonstrate that the incident was responsible for those symptoms.
Utah law recognizes that individuals may experience an aggravation of a preexisting condition as a result of another party’s negligence. In Harris v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., 2013 UT 34, the Utah Supreme Court examined the relationship between preexisting conditions, the eggshell-plaintiff doctrine, and apportionment of damages. The court explained that damages attributable to separate causes may be apportioned when there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for doing so, while recognizing the difficulties that arise when the effects of multiple contributing factors cannot reliably be separated. Related principles were addressed in Tingey v. Christensen, 1999 UT 68.
These legal principles underscore an important distinction in forensic psychological assessment: the presence of a preexisting mental health condition does not necessarily exclude the possibility of a subsequent psychological injury, but neither does a post-incident diagnosis establish that the incident caused all reported symptoms or impairment.
A comprehensive psychological causation analysis may consider:
Pre-incident functioning: Psychological history, prior treatment, symptom severity, and functioning before the alleged injury.
Temporal relationships: The onset, progression, and persistence of psychological symptoms following the incident.
Alternative explanations: Other potentially contributing stressors, medical conditions, subsequent events, or psychosocial factors.
Aggravation of preexisting conditions: Whether the available evidence supports a meaningful change in symptom severity or functional impairment.
Consistency across evidence: The relationship between reported symptoms, psychological testing, contemporaneous records, and collateral information.
Functional consequences: Changes in occupational, interpersonal, social, and daily functioning that may be associated with the alleged injury.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize the importance of considering plausible alternative hypotheses, using
multiple sources of information, and seeking corroboration of important findings when feasible. These principles are particularly relevant to psychological causation, where conclusions must account for the interaction of preexisting vulnerabilities, subsequent events, and other contributing factors.
Ultimately, the forensic psychologist’s role is not to determine legal liability or allocate damages, but to provide scientifically grounded opinions regarding the nature of the claimed psychological injury, the evidence supporting or limiting causal conclusions, and the extent to which an incident may have contributed to changes in psychological functioning.
The assessment of response validity is an essential component of forensic psychological evaluations, particularly in personal injury litigation where psychological findings may have significant legal and financial implications. Forensic psychologists must consider not only whether an individual reports symptoms consistent with a psychological disorder, but also whether the available assessment data provide a reliable foundation for interpreting those symptoms.
Response validity assessment examines the accuracy, consistency, and interpretability of an individual’s reported symptoms and test responses. This may involve evaluating patterns of overreporting, underreporting, inconsistent responding, or unusual symptom endorsement. Importantly, evidence of symptom overreporting does not automatically establish malingering or intentional deception. Such findings must be interpreted in the context of the individual’s clinical presentation, relevant history, and other available evidence.
The American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology’s 2021 Consensus Statement on Validity Assessment emphasizes the importance of proactively evaluating the validity of psychological and neuropsychological assessment findings. Although developed within the neuropsychological assessment literature, these principles are relevant to the interpretation of reported psychological symptoms in forensic settings.
A comprehensive response validity assessment may consider:
Symptom validity measures: Standardized instruments and validity indicators designed to evaluate the consistency and credibility of reported psychological symptoms.
Response patterns: Evidence of inconsistent responding, unusual symptom combinations, or patterns of overreporting or underreporting.
Consistency across information sources: Agreement or discrepancies among clinical interviews, psychological testing, treatment records, and collateral information.
Clinical and contextual factors: The potential influence of genuine psychological distress, cognitive difficulties, cultural or linguistic differences, and other factors affecting test performance.
Alternative explanations: Whether atypical findings may reflect misunderstanding, symptom severity, response style, intentional misrepresentation, or other influences.
Interpretive limitations: The extent to which validity findings affect confidence in diagnostic conclusions and opinions regarding psychological impairment.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize the use of appropriate assessment methods, consideration of competing hypotheses, and corroboration through multiple sources of information whenever feasible. The guidelines also recognize that forensic assessment findings may be influenced by factors such as response style, situational stress, and the circumstances of legal involvement.
These methodological considerations are particularly important when psychological findings are offered as expert evidence. Under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must satisfy requirements concerning the reliability of the underlying principles and methods and their application to the facts of the case. Accordingly, forensic psychologists should be prepared to explain the scientific basis for their validity assessment methods, the interpretation of relevant findings, and any limitations affecting their conclusions.
Ultimately, response validity assessment is not simply an effort to identify exaggeration or malingering. Its broader purpose is to determine the extent to which assessment findings can be interpreted with confidence. By integrating standardized validity measures with clinical interviews, records, and other relevant evidence, forensic psychologists can provide more scientifically defensible opinions regarding reported psychological symptoms and impairment.
A psychological diagnosis does not necessarily establish the extent to which an individual has experienced functional impairment. In personal injury litigation, an important distinction exists between the presence of psychological symptoms and the degree to which those symptoms affect an individual’s ability to function in daily life. Two individuals with the same diagnosis may experience substantially different levels of occupational, social, interpersonal, or emotional impairment.
Forensic psychological evaluations therefore examine not only whether a psychological condition is present, but also whether the available evidence supports meaningful changes in functioning following the alleged injury. This analysis requires consideration of the individual’s baseline functioning, the nature and severity of reported limitations, and the potential contribution of preexisting conditions or other factors.
The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides an internationally recognized framework for understanding functioning and disability. The ICF distinguishes health conditions from their effects on activities and participation, while recognizing that functioning is influenced by environmental and personal factors. Although the ICF does not establish legal standards for psychological damages, it offers a useful conceptual framework for evaluating impairment beyond diagnosis alone.
A comprehensive assessment of psychological functioning may consider:
Occupational functioning: Changes in work performance, attendance, productivity, employment stability, or the ability to meet occupational demands.
Interpersonal relationships: Changes in family relationships, social engagement, intimacy, and the ability to maintain meaningful relationships.
Daily activities: Difficulties with independent functioning, household responsibilities, personal care, and routine activities.
Emotional and behavioral functioning: The frequency, severity, and persistence of psychological symptoms and their relationship to reported limitations.
Pre-incident functioning: The individual’s previous level of functioning, including any established limitations or accommodations.
Alternative contributing factors: The potential effects of chronic pain, physical injury, medication, medical conditions, subsequent stressors, or preexisting psychological difficulties.
Consistency across evidence: The extent to which reported impairment is supported by psychological testing, treatment records, employment documentation, and collateral information.
Utah’s Model Civil Jury Instructions on Tort Damages distinguish economic damages from noneconomic damages, including pain, suffering, and other intangible losses. These distinctions are particularly relevant to psychological injury claims, where an individual’s emotional distress and diminished functioning may be central issues. However, the forensic psychologist’s role is not to determine the monetary value of damages, but to evaluate the nature, severity, and functional consequences of the claimed psychological injury.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize the importance of using appropriate methods, considering alternative hypotheses, and recognizing the limitations of assessment findings. These principles are particularly relevant when evaluating functional impairment, as self-reported difficulties may not always correspond directly with objectively documented changes in functioning.
Ultimately, a defensible assessment of psychological damages requires more than identifying symptoms or assigning a diagnosis. It requires a careful examination of how an individual’s psychological functioning has changed, the degree to which those changes are supported by available evidence, and the extent to which the alleged incident may have contributed to the reported impairment. The forensic psychologist’s role is to provide an objective, evidence-based assessment of these issues while leaving determinations of legal liability and monetary damages to the court or factfinder.
Independent psychological examinations play an important role in personal injury litigation when an individual’s psychological condition, the cause of reported symptoms, or the extent of claimed impairment is disputed. These evaluations may be requested by plaintiff or defense counsel, conducted by agreement between the parties, or ordered by a court under applicable rules of civil procedure.
In Utah state court proceedings, Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 35 governs court-ordered physical and mental examinations. The rule permits an examination when a party’s mental or physical condition is in controversy and the required showing of good cause has been made. The court’s order specifies the conditions governing the examination, including its scope and the person authorized to conduct it. In federal proceedings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 establishes a similar framework.
The United States Supreme Court addressed the requirements for court-ordered examinations in Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964). The Court emphasized that the requirements that a condition be genuinely in controversy and that good cause exist are not mere formalities. Rather, they require an affirmative showing that an examination is warranted under the circumstances of the particular case. Although Schlagenhauf interprets the federal rule, its reasoning provides useful context for understanding the procedural considerations surrounding independent examinations.
An independent psychological examination may address:
Diagnostic clarification: Whether the available evidence supports a psychological diagnosis and the extent to which diagnostic criteria are satisfied.
Psychological causation: Whether the alleged incident caused, contributed to, or aggravated psychological symptoms or impairment.
Preexisting conditions: The role of prior mental health conditions, treatment history, and baseline functioning.
Response validity: The reliability and interpretability of reported symptoms and psychological test findings.
Functional impairment: The nature and extent of psychological limitations affecting occupational, interpersonal, and daily functioning.
Prognosis: The anticipated course of psychological symptoms and factors that may influence recovery.
Alternative explanations: Other medical, psychological, or situational factors that may contribute to the individual’s presentation.
Unlike treatment-oriented evaluations, independent forensic examinations are conducted to address specific psycholegal questions rather than to establish a therapeutic relationship. The examining psychologist should clarify the purpose of the evaluation, the intended recipients of the findings, and the limits of confidentiality before beginning the examination.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize impartiality, informed consent and notification, appropriate assessment methods, and the importance of distinguishing forensic from therapeutic roles. These principles apply regardless of whether the psychologist is retained by plaintiff counsel, defense counsel, or appointed by the court.
An independent psychological examination does not inherently favor either party. Its purpose is to provide scientifically grounded opinions that address the relevant legal questions, consider evidence both supporting and contradicting the claimed injury, and acknowledge the limitations of the available information.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists approach independent examinations with an emphasis on methodological rigor, objective interpretation, and clear communication of findings. Our goal is to provide attorneys and courts with defensible psychological opinions that assist in understanding the nature, causation, and extent of claimed psychological injuries.
Personal injury litigation frequently involves overlapping psychological, cognitive, and physical complaints, particularly following motor vehicle accidents, traumatic brain injuries, workplace injuries, and other potentially traumatic events. Symptoms such as memory difficulties, impaired concentration, fatigue, irritability, and sleep disturbances may arise from psychological distress, neurological injury, chronic pain, medication effects, or a combination of contributing factors.
Distinguishing among these possibilities is essential when evaluating the nature, causation, and extent of claimed psychological or cognitive impairment. Although psychological and neuropsychological evaluations share certain assessment methods, they address different clinical and forensic questions.
Psychological evaluations primarily examine emotional, behavioral, personality, and psychiatric functioning. In personal injury cases, these evaluations may assess conditions such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety disorders, and adjustment disorders. They may also examine symptom validity, preexisting psychological conditions, functional impairment, and the relationship between reported symptoms and the alleged incident.
Neuropsychological evaluations involve a more detailed assessment of cognitive functioning, including attention, memory, processing speed, executive functioning, language, and other cognitive abilities. These evaluations may be particularly relevant when a case involves suspected traumatic brain injury, neurological disease, or disputed cognitive impairment.
The American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology’s Practice Guidelines for Neuropsychological Assessment and Consultation describe the professional standards and methodological considerations involved in neuropsychological assessment. These guidelines emphasize the importance of integrating standardized test findings with medical history, behavioral observations, and other relevant clinical information.
The distinction between psychological and neuropsychological evaluation is particularly important because cognitive complaints are not necessarily evidence of neurological injury. Difficulties with memory, concentration, or mental efficiency may also be associated with PTSD, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, chronic pain, and other conditions. Conversely, the presence of psychological symptoms does not rule out an underlying neurological condition.
A comprehensive evaluation may consider:
The nature of the alleged injury: Whether the incident involved potential neurological injury, psychological trauma, or both.
Presenting symptoms: Whether the primary concerns involve emotional functioning, cognitive performance, or a combination of difficulties.
Medical and neurological evidence: Relevant imaging, neurological examinations, medical history, and documented injury characteristics.
Psychological contributors: The potential influence of psychiatric symptoms, chronic pain, sleep difficulties, medication effects, and psychosocial stressors.
Performance and symptom validity: Whether assessment findings provide a reliable basis for interpreting cognitive performance and reported symptoms.
Functional consequences: The relationship between identified difficulties and changes in occupational, interpersonal, and daily functioning.
Alternative explanations: Whether the available evidence supports neurological, psychological, medical, or multifactorial explanations for the reported difficulties.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize the importance of using assessment methods appropriate to the referral questions and recognizing the limitations of professional expertise. These considerations are particularly relevant when an evaluation involves both psychological and neuropsychological questions.
Under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must satisfy requirements concerning the expert’s qualifications and the reliability of the methods used to support the opinions offered. Accordingly, the scope of a forensic psychological or neuropsychological evaluation should be consistent with the examiner’s training, qualifications, and the specific questions at issue.
In some cases, a psychological evaluation may adequately address the relevant psycholegal questions. In others, a comprehensive neuropsychological examination or a coordinated assessment involving professionals with complementary expertise may be necessary.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, we emphasize matching the scope of the evaluation to the referral questions and available evidence. Our objective is to ensure that psychological and cognitive complaints are evaluated using appropriate methods, with careful consideration of overlapping symptoms, alternative explanations, and the limits of scientifically supported conclusions.
In personal injury litigation, attorneys may seek an independent review of an existing psychological or neuropsychological evaluation to assess the scientific foundation, methodology, and reasoning underlying another expert’s conclusions. A forensic psychological report review can be particularly valuable when the central questions concern the adequacy of an evaluation, the interpretation of psychological testing, or whether the examiner’s opinions are supported by the available evidence.
A records-only review differs from an independent psychological examination. Rather than conducting new interviews or administering psychological tests, the reviewing psychologist examines existing records, assessment findings, and expert reports to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the opinions offered. Depending on the scope of the referral, this may involve identifying methodological concerns, evaluating competing interpretations, or determining whether conclusions extend beyond what the available data can reasonably support.
Under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must satisfy requirements concerning the reliability of the principles and methods underlying an expert’s opinions and their application to the facts of the case. Similarly, Utah Rule of Evidence 703 addresses the types of facts or data upon which experts may reasonably rely in forming their opinions.
These evidentiary standards provide an important framework for examining whether a psychological expert’s conclusions are adequately supported, although the ultimate determination of admissibility rests with the court.
A comprehensive psychological expert report review may examine:
Assessment methodology: Whether the selected psychological instruments, interview procedures, and assessment methods were appropriate for the referral questions.
Interpretation of psychological testing: Whether test results were interpreted accurately and in accordance with relevant professional standards.
Response validity: Whether validity indicators were appropriately administered, interpreted, and integrated into the examiner’s conclusions.
Diagnostic reasoning: Whether the available evidence supports the diagnoses offered and whether relevant differential diagnostic considerations were addressed.
Psychological causation: Whether the evaluator adequately considered preexisting conditions, alternative explanations, and the evidence linking reported symptoms to the alleged incident.
Consistency with available records: Whether conclusions are supported by treatment records, medical documentation, collateral information, and other relevant evidence.
Unsupported inferences: Whether the examiner’s opinions exceed the scope of the assessment findings or rely on assumptions that are not adequately substantiated.
Professional and methodological limitations: Whether important limitations, conflicting findings, or uncertainties were appropriately acknowledged.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize the importance of examining competing hypotheses, using appropriate assessment methods, and identifying limitations in the available information. These principles are relevant both to conducting original forensic evaluations and to critically reviewing the work of other experts.
In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the United States Supreme Court recognized that expert testimony may be excluded when there is too great an analytical gap between the underlying data and the opinion offered. Although Joiner addresses federal evidentiary standards, the principle illustrates an important consideration in forensic psychological report review: the distinction between conclusions that are supported by assessment findings and those that require inferences beyond the available evidence.
A records-only review also carries important limitations. Without directly examining the individual, a psychologist may be unable to independently establish certain diagnostic findings, assess current functioning, or evaluate response validity through new testing. However, these limitations do not necessarily prevent a reviewing psychologist from identifying methodological weaknesses, unsupported conclusions, or alternative interpretations of existing evidence.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists approach expert report reviews with an emphasis on scientific rigor, objectivity, and careful evaluation of the relationship between assessment data and expert conclusions. Whether reviewing an evaluation prepared for plaintiff or defense counsel, our objective is to provide independent, evidence-based opinions regarding the strengths, limitations, and scientific defensibility of the findings presented.
Forensic psychological evaluations can provide valuable information to attorneys and courts regarding the nature, causation, severity, and functional consequences of claimed psychological injuries. However, the presence of a psychological diagnosis does not necessarily establish legal causation, and the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from psychological evidence depend on the quality, completeness, and reliability of the available information.
An essential responsibility of the forensic psychologist is to distinguish between clinically plausible explanations and opinions that are sufficiently supported by empirical evidence. This requires careful consideration of alternative hypotheses, the limitations of psychological assessment methods, and the extent to which findings support conclusions about an individual’s psychological functioning.
Under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must satisfy requirements concerning the expert’s qualifications, the reliability of the underlying principles and methods, and their application to the facts of the case. The rule provides an important framework for evaluating whether psychological expert opinions are sufficiently reliable to assist the trier of fact.
In Eskelson v. Davis Hospital & Medical Center, 2010 UT 59, the Utah Supreme Court discussed the trial court’s gatekeeping responsibility in evaluating expert testimony under Rule 702, including the distinction between determining whether expert testimony meets the threshold for admissibility and evaluating the ultimate persuasiveness of an expert’s conclusions. The decision illustrates the importance of grounding expert opinions in reliable methods while recognizing that disagreements between qualified experts do not necessarily render their testimony inadmissible.
Similarly, in General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the United States Supreme Court recognized that expert opinions may be excluded when an excessive analytical gap exists between the underlying data and the conclusions offered. Although Joiner concerns federal evidentiary standards, it highlights a fundamental issue in forensic psychological reasoning: conclusions must be supported by the evidence rather than merely asserted by the evaluator.
A scientifically defensible forensic psychological opinion should address several considerations:
Adequacy of the available evidence: Whether the evaluation includes sufficient information to support the conclusions offered, including relevant records, clinical findings, psychological testing, and collateral information when appropriate.
Reliability of assessment methods: Whether the instruments and procedures used are appropriate for the referral questions and supported by relevant scientific literature.
Consideration of alternative explanations: Whether the evaluator has meaningfully examined competing hypotheses, preexisting conditions, and other potential contributors to the individual’s presentation.
Response validity and interpretive confidence: Whether assessment findings are sufficiently reliable to support diagnostic, causal, and functional conclusions.
Consistency between findings and opinions: Whether the conclusions logically follow from the available evidence without unsupported assumptions or excessive inference.
Professional competence and scope of expertise: Whether the opinions fall within the evaluator’s training, experience, and professional qualifications.
Acknowledgment of limitations: Whether uncertainties, conflicting evidence, and methodological constraints are clearly communicated.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize the importance of using appropriate methods, examining plausible alternative hypotheses, and distinguishing observations and data from the inferences drawn from them. These principles are especially important in personal injury litigation, where psychological findings may be used to support or challenge claims involving emotional distress, psychiatric diagnoses, and functional impairment.
Forensic psychologists must also recognize the distinction between psychological opinions and ultimate legal determinations. Although an evaluator may offer scientifically supported opinions regarding diagnosis, symptom severity, psychological causation, prognosis, and functional impairment, questions of legal liability and the monetary valuation of damages generally fall outside the psychologist’s professional role.
Importantly, Utah Rule of Evidence 704 provides that an otherwise admissible expert opinion is not automatically objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue. Nevertheless, this does not eliminate the requirements of Rule 702 or authorize experts to offer unsupported legal conclusions. The appropriate scope of expert testimony depends on the referral questions, the expert’s qualifications, and the applicable evidentiary standards.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize transparent reasoning, scientifically supported conclusions, and clear acknowledgment of the limits of psychological evidence. Our objective is not to advocate for a particular litigation outcome, but to provide independent psychological opinions that assist attorneys and courts in understanding the clinical and forensic issues relevant to the case.
Scope established before work begins.
Personal injury evaluations are private pay. Insurance does not cover the cost of these evaluations.
For additional payment information, visit our Fees & Insurance page.
Evaluation services
Retainer required before services begin
Contact us to discuss your case, clarify the referral questions, and learn how a personal injury psychological evaluation can address your needs.
A personal injury psychological evaluation assesses the emotional and psychological impact of an injury or traumatic event, often for use in legal or insurance contexts.
Yes. These evaluations are designed to provide objective, well-supported opinions that may be used in legal proceedings.
Common conditions include PTSD, depression, anxiety, and other trauma-related or emotional difficulties.
Yes. We regularly collaborate with attorneys and other professionals to provide clear, defensible evaluations.
The process typically includes interviews, testing, record review, and report writing. Timelines vary depending on the complexity of the case. Typically, these evaluations take 4 to 6 weeks.
REVIEWED BY
Licensed Psychologist │ Utah License: 12377684-2501
View Professional Credentials →