Neuropathic Pain Syndrome Displayed by Malingerers

The Oregon Nerve Center, Good Samaritan Medical Center, 1040 NW 22nd Ave., Suite 600, Portland, OR 97210, USA.
The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences (Impact Factor: 2.82). 07/2010; 22(3):278-86. DOI: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.22.3.278
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Among 237 patients communicating chronic pain, associated with sensory-motor and "autonomic" displays, qualifying taxonomically for neuropathic pain, there were 16 shown through surveillance to be malingerers. When analyzed through neurological methods, their profile was characteristically atypical. There were no objective equivalents of peripheral or central processes impairing nerve impulse transmission. In absence of medical explanation, all 16 had been adjudicated, by default, the label complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The authors emphasize that CRPS patients may not only harbor unrecognized pathology ("lesion") of the nervous system (CRPS II), hypothetical central neuronal "dysfunction" (CRPS I), or conversion disorder, but may display a recognizable simulated illness without neuropsychiatric pathology.

1 Follower
17 Reads
  • Source
    • "Besides, the enhanced autonomic sympathetic activity was found facilitating nociceptive fibers to develop CRPS, but no direct evidence of activation of nociceptors related to sympathetic discharge was found [4]. Therefore, central nerve system (CNS) was concentrated on for its involvement in the pathogenesis of CRPS, especially when nerve injury existed [2,5]. In general, pain signal produced from the distal area due to various reasons needs to be transmitted along afferent fibers to dorsal root ganglia (DRG), the first relay station for pain signaling into the CNS. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract DRG is of importance in relaying painful stimulation to the higher pain centers and therefore could be a crucial target for early intervention aimed at suppressing primary afferent stimulation. Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a common pain condition with an unknown etiology. Recently added new information enriches our understanding of CRPS pathophysiology. Researches on genetics, biogenic amines, neurotransmitters, and mechanisms of pain modulation, central sensitization, and autonomic functions in CRPS revealed various abnormalities indicating that multiple factors and mechanisms are involved in the pathogenesis of CRPS. Epigenetics refers to mitotically and meiotically heritable changes in gene expression that do not affect the DNA sequence. As epigenetic modifications potentially play an important role in inflammatory cytokine metabolism, neurotransmitter responsiveness, and analgesic sensitivity, they are likely key factors in the development of chronic pain. In this dyad review series, we systematically examine the nerve injury-related changes in the neurological system and their contribution to CRPS. In this part, we first reviewed and summarized the role of neural sensitization in DRG neurons in performing function in the context of pain processing. Particular emphasis is placed on the cellular and molecular changes after nerve injury as well as different models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain. These were considered as the potential molecular bases that underlie nerve injury-associated pathogenesis of CRPS.
    Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research 06/2014; 20:1067-77. DOI:10.12659/MSM.890702 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Personal injury insurers require a means to assess the physical and psychological status of their insured, as occurrences of unconscious symptom exaggeration (Dersh, Polatin, Leeman and Gatchel, 2004; Howard, Kishino, Johnston, Worzer and Gatchel, 2010), frank malingering (Greve, Ord, Bianchini and Curtis, 2007; Ochoa and Verdugo, 2010), and over-provision of services (Eisendrath, Rand and Feldman, 1996; Green 2011) exist in personal injury cases. Without independent medical examinations (IMEs), insurers' costs would escalate to a level that would potentially make the provision of coverage unrealistic. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article was originally published with errors that were introduced during the editing process. The corrected version of this article appears below. Abstract Independent medical examinations (IMEs) theoretically construe a means of “independently” assessing a claimant’s physical and psychological status, as well as to determine whether treatment that has been and will potentially be provided is reasonable and necessary. IMEs may be undertaken both for the plaintiff and defense or related adversaries. In the present case, we focus on IMEs that are requested by insurers. One can query the degree to which IMEs are actually “independent.” It has been posited that one of the ways in which claims managers contribute to potential bias against claimants is through a process of selectively providing examiners with medical records, which has been described as “cherry-picking.” Despite the existence of rules and laws that are designed to prevent cherry-picking, the practice still occurs. This analysis discusses the legal as well as ethical implications of cherry-picking and its potential to cause or exacerbate psychological injury that a claimant may experience. The authors propose that psychologists as well as attorneys can advocate for their vulnerable patients/clients in cases of cherry-picking. A recent case study from the clinical practice of the first author in which he so acted is provided. We conclude with a discussion of the ethical implications of the psychologist’s intervention.
    Psychological Injury and Law 06/2014; 7(2):191-196. DOI:10.1007/s12207-014-9194-y
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Recently, there is a growing research and clinical interest in the field of forensic neuropsychology. Within this discipline, identification of feigned symptoms presented during forensic assessment has become a particularly important topic. Studies have demonstrated how difficult it can be to detect feigned presentations. Clinicians and researchers have failed to rule out malingering especially in cases of mild or moderate brain damage.Objectives The study aims to compare between infrequency (F), fake bad scale (FBS) and infrequency psychopathology (F(p)) scales in diagnosis of malingering to determine the best neuropsychological scale that can be used for diagnosis of malingering; aiming to help forensic psychiatrists in their practice.Patients and methodsA cross-sectional descriptive study included 150 participants with recent head trauma was subjected using a questionnaire (includes demographic data, cause and degree of traumatic brain injury) completed by the participants. Three valid scales (infrequency (F), fake bad scale (FBS) and infrequency psychopathology F(p)) were administered to patients diagnosed as mild and moderate traumatic brain injury and attending the neurosurgery department at Suez Canal University Hospital seeking for a medical report about their recent trauma. The diagnostic outcomes of these scales were compared with the expert diagnosis based on the convenient clinical diagnostic tool (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders IV (DSM-IV)).ResultsThe study reveals a significant association (p < 0.05) between expert diagnosis of malingering and FBS scale outcome, and statistically non-significant relationship (p > 0.05) between expert diagnosis of malingering and the outcome of both (F) and (F(p)) scales. It also demonstrates that the FBS has the higher accuracy among the three studied scales.ConclusionFBS is the most specific scale among the three studied scales, as its specificity is 87% compared to 60.9% for F scale and 70% for F(p) scale, and it is also the most sensitive scale as its sensitivity is 93.5% compared to 48.3% for F scale and 38.7% for F(p) scale.
    03/2011; 1(1):13–18. DOI:10.1016/j.ejfs.2011.04.004
Show more


17 Reads
Available from