Seto, M. C. (2004). Pedophilia and sexual offenses involving
children. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15,321–361.
Seto, M. C. (in press). Pedophilia and sexual offending
against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.PERSONALINJURY AND
EMOTIONALDISTRESS
Personal injury and emotional distress claims are civil
court matters in which psychologists may become
involved in several ways. A claim of psychological
injury or emotional distress resulting from the inten-
tional or reckless actions of another sets in motion
the collection of data to buttress or refute the claim.
Treatment providers, whose interventions occur in
a helping context, may offer an opinion to the court
about the nature, causation, and consequences of the
psychological injury. A more objective, investigatory,
and wide-ranging investigation offers greater utility to
the fact finder, however, and this is the primary contri-
bution of the forensic psychologist in court. This
examination may be accomplished at the request of
the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s counsel, and it is
characterized by multiple sources and methods of data
collection, reliance on reliable and valid measures and
techniques, and respect for the limits of psychological
expertise in determining matters of interest to the law.Context
Personal injury claims (also known as tort claims) are
made in civil court when one party, usually an individ-
ual (the plaintiff), seeks compensation from another
party, an individual, a corporation, or an agency (the
defendant), for an injury allegedly suffered because of
the negligent act of the defendant. This process of tort
litigation exists to make whole again those who are
damaged by the willful action of another. This allows
society to protect its members from exploitation by
others’ intentional actions or their failure to take rea-
sonable steps to avoid doing harm. The legal system is
called on to first determine whether the defendant had
a duty of some sort to the plaintiff. Second, the legal
system must determine whether the duty was breached—
that is, whether the defendant failed to fulfill its respon-
sibility to the plaintiff. Third, the court must determinewhether the plaintiff was harmed by the breach
of responsibility. Fourth, the court must determine
whether that harm suffered by the plaintiff was reason-
ably foreseeable—that is, whether the defendant knew,
or should have known, that by its negligent action the
plaintiff was likely to suffer damage.
Different categories of personal injury or tort litiga-
tion include claims against providers of professional
services (malpractice cases); claims against employers
for discriminatory hiring processes, negligent treat-
ment, workplace harassment, or physical injury on
the job (including workers’ compensation cases); and
claims against manufacturers or suppliers of products
(product liability cases). Claims may be made directly
by an injured individual or on behalf of an injured
dependant, including a child or an adult who lacks
competency to manage personal affairs. Suits may be
brought on behalf of groups or classes of people, such
as all people who received certain services from a
provider or all people who purchased a defective prod-
uct; these are referred to as class action suits. If the
class of plaintiffs prevails, the awards are split, after
payment of attorneys’ fees, among the plaintiffs.Psychologists’ Role
Psychologists may become involved in personal injury
claims at any of several points. The most common
application in forensic psychology is when the plaintiff
claims mental health injury beyond that which would
normally be expected to occur under the alleged cir-
cumstances. The plaintiff generally offers expert testi-
mony to support that claim. The treating mental health
professional’s testimony may be offered, by affidavit
or in person, to support the claim that the plaintiff has
suffered psychological injury. On notice of this offer,
the defendant may seek to have its own expert exam-
ine the plaintiff, which is often referred to as an inde-
pendent medical examination (IME). Whether or not
the plaintiff intends to offer expert testimony to but-
tress a claim of mental anguish or other psychological
injury, the claim itself is often sufficient to trigger a
compelled mental health examination.
The forensic psychologist retained by the plaintiff
or the defense conducts a comprehensive examination
of the plaintiff to determine whether there is clinical
evidence of psychological injury and what data exist
to support or refute the claim that that injury was
caused by the alleged wrong. This examination, whenPersonal Injury and Emotional Distress——— 551P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 551