Initial Contact
-
Potential clients (e.g., attorneys, paralegals, IME or disability claim processors) are welcome to contact Dr. Acheson to discuss your case and determine whether he might be the best expert for your case. He will enquire about the names of all parties involved (including attorneys and firms) to rule out any conflict of interest. He will also ask about upcoming trial dates or other significant deadlines. Dr. Acheson will provide information concerning his rates, retainers and retention contract.
-
It is best to contact Dr. Acheson as early in the process as possible. Please follow this link to complete an online intake form and to arrange a telephone or video conference call.
Case Review
-
Following an introductory call with attorneys and execution of the retention contract, Dr. Acheson generally conducts a case review. This typically involves a review of the available records and may involve additional conversation with the attorney/client. This first step provides attorneys with a better understanding of the potential nature and severity of deficits in a civil plaintiff or criminal defendant based on information available in the record review or other sources of information. Following the case review, Dr. Acheson will arrange a meeting or call with the client (attorney) to discuss his initial impressions and make recommendations concerning the next steps in the process. Based on the outcome of this discussion, Dr. Acheson and the client may agree to proceed with Dr. Acheson serving as an expert witness (subject matter or evaluating expert witness), as a non-testifying/non-disclosed expert, or it may be determined that Dr. Acheson is not the best fit for the client’s case or will not be able to offer a favorable opinion in the client’s case. In IME/disability matters, evaluation and interview of collateral sources generally proceeds without further consultation with clients.
-
The expert in forensic neuropsychology may be involved in legal matters in several ways. Most notably, they may function as an expert witness with the ultimate intention of testifying as a subject matter or an evaluating expert (see below). Alternatively, they may work behind the scenes with retaining counsel as a forensic consultant with no intention of testifying. In general these roles are not overlapping and with few exceptions an expert neuropsychologist should not drift between roles in a particular matter. To fulfill both roles may be considered a breach of the psychologists ethical obligation to avoid dual roles.
Expert Witness Testimony
-
When the expert in forensic neuropsychology is expected to testify, they serve as either a subject matter expert or as an evaluating expert. These roles may overlap.
-
Subject Matter Expert: In this role, the expert neuropsychologist assists the court by providing testimony based on their scientific knowledge, training, and experience. This testimony is used to help the court (or other experts) better understand the scientific neuropsychological evidence relevant to the case. The neuropsychologist's testimony may involve explaining complex neuropsychological concepts and findings in a manner that is understandable to the court and the jury. Subject matter experts typically limit their testimony to the state of the science on a particular subject or the objective facts of a particular matter. Such testimony may include factual knowledge concerning the nature and outcome of brain damage caused by traumatic or acquired brain injuries, neurodevelopmental disabilities, neurodegenerative disorders, to name but a few. They may also offer rebuttal testimony concerning the appropriate (or inappropriate) measures, methods or procedures used in the evaluation process by other experts in the case.
Dr. Acheson spent many years teaching in the classroom and continues to provide seminars and workshops to various professional groups and organizations across the country. Teaching judges and juries about the complexities of the human brain and mind is a particular passion of his.
-
Evaluating Expert - Evaluating experts in neuropsychology may offer testimony as a subject matter expert (see above) but they also offer opinions concerning a person’s level of functioning and the degree to which that functioning is associated with an alleged or documented injury or history. These opinions are based on an extensive knowledge of the subject matter (as above), the individuals history and background (based on record review and interviews), and direct evaluation of plaintiffs/defendants using psychological and/or neuropsychological tests. Subject matter experts are generally limited in the opinions they can offer regarding the plaintiff/defendant’s current psychological or neuropsychological functioning because they have not performed a direct examination. The evaluation process is discussed here: Psychological & Neuropsychological Evaluation
Dr. Acheson has been performing psychological and neuropsychological evaluations in inpatient and outpatient clinical settings for more than 20 years and in forensic settings for more than 15 years.
-
-
Whether the expert neuropsychologist is retained as a subject matter expert or as an evaluating expert, It is important that the expert’s testimony be objective, impartial, and based on the best available scientific evidence. The measures, methods and procedures used by the expert neuropsychologist should be determined by the referral question and should not vary as a function of who retained the expert (court v. defense v. prosecution in criminal matters; or, plaintiff v. defense in civil matters). Moreover, the expert neuropsychologist must be able to communicate their findings in a clear and concise manner and be able to withstand cross-examination by opposing counsel.
-
As a consultant, the expert neuropsychologist serves as an advisor to the retaining attorney and should not be expected to testify. The role of the forensic consultant is to provide counsel with their expertise to help counsel win her/his case.
-
Expert neuropsychologists who function in the role of consultant can assist counsel with preparing their testifying expert for testimony. This may involve the review of the testifying experts report, verifying factual accuracy of scores and data interpretation, and/or preparing the expert for testimony at deposition or trial. The consultant may also review records and expert reports to assist counsel in preparing for cross examination of opposing experts at deposition or trial.
-
As a subject matter or evaluating expert, the forensic neuropsychologist is committed to the objectivity and validity of their opinion, independent of who has retained her/him. In addition, they should avoid assisting their client with preparing other experts or the clients’ questioning of opposing experts. The latter should be construed as advocacy which is not the role of an objective or disinterested subject matter / evaluating expert.
-
In some cases, when it has been determined that the subject matter or evaluating expert does not have a favorable opinion for retaining counsel, the expert’s role may change to that of forensic consultant with the clear expectation that they will not be called to testify. However, once an expert neuropsychologist has been identified and engaged as a “consultant” in a particular case, it is generally considered inappropriate for them to switch roles and become a testifying expert.
Forensic Consultation
Trial or Settlement
-
As a Subject Matter or Evaluating Expert, Dr. Acheson will be prepared to present and defend his opinions at deposition and trial. When Dr. Acheson’s findings are favorable to his clients’ interests, cases typically settle before going to trial.
-
As a forensic consultant, Dr. Acheson is committed to providing clients with valuable insight into a variety of psychological and neuropsychological matters relevant to the case. Dr. Acheson can assist in preparing the plaintiff / defendant for testimony before the court. He may also assist counsel in preparing for direct or cross examination of witnesses or experts based on his knowledge of the methods, measures, and procedures used by psychologists. As an example, Dr. Acheson may be asked to review opposing expert reports and testing materials to determine if there were errors in administration, scoring or interpretation of test instruments that materially affected the outcome of the experts opinion.
Transparency and appropriate expectations are critical for successful outcomes. Below is an overview of Dr. Acheson's services and practice model. Click on each element for more details.