Malingering & Symptom
Validity Assessments
Assessing feigning and exaggeration in personal injury, clinical negligence, and criminal proceedings under CPR Part 35 and CrimPR 19.
Assessing symptom validity
in contested claims.
Our chambers prepares symptom validity and malingering assessment reports for cases where feigning or exaggeration of psychiatric or psychological symptoms is alleged. These reports address the genuineness of symptom presentation using standardised instruments and clinical judgement.
Members of our chambers hold GMC Specialist Register or HCPC registration and are instructed under CPR Part 35, CrimPR 19, or FPR 25. Our reports support solicitors, insurers, and local authorities in personal injury, clinical negligence, criminal, and family proceedings where symptom validity is in dispute.
Three stages where
this report is critical.
Defence response
Commissioned by defendant solicitors or insurers following receipt of a claimant’s psychiatric report where symptom exaggeration or feigning is suspected. Our reports provide an independent assessment of symptom validity under CPR Part 35.
Joint expert stage
Used in joint expert discussions under CPR 35.12 to resolve disputes on symptom validity. Our experts prepare joint statements addressing inconsistencies in presentation, test results, and clinical observations.
Trial preparation
Instructed where symptom validity remains contested and the case proceeds to trial. Our reports form the basis for oral evidence, with experts available to attend court under CPR 35.3 to assist the court on their findings.
What the report contains,
section by section.
Expert qualifications
GMC Specialist Register or HCPC registration, MRCPsych or BPS Chartered status, and the expert’s experience in symptom validity assessment. The declaration of independence under CPR 35.3 is included.
Instruction & documents
The instructing party, the questions posed, and the records reviewed, including medical, psychiatric, and legal documents. The paulhus deception scales are listed where administered.
Clinical interview
The claimant’s account of symptoms, inconsistencies noted during the interview, and observations on presentation. The expert’s clinical judgement on symptom plausibility is documented.
Standardised testing
Results of symptom validity tests, including the paulhus deception scales, and other instruments such as the SIMS or TOMM. The rationale for test selection and interpretation of scores is provided.
Collateral evidence
Review of records, witness statements, and other evidence to assess consistency with the claimant’s reported symptoms. Discrepancies are highlighted and analysed.
Opinion on validity
The expert’s reasoned opinion on whether symptoms are genuine, exaggerated, or feigned. The paulhus deception scales and other test results are integrated with clinical findings to support the conclusion.
Statement of truth
The CPR Part 35 declaration of compliance with the expert’s duty to the court, signed statement of truth, and confirmation of independence under CPR 35.3.
How the assessment
is conducted.
Our members follow a transparent, evidence-based methodology to assess symptom validity, ensuring compliance with CPR Part 35 and the Civil Justice Council’s 2014 Guidance. Each step is documented to withstand scrutiny in joint expert discussions and cross-examination.
-
01
Records review
Full review of medical, psychiatric, and legal records to identify inconsistencies in symptom reporting. Material entries are referenced in the report to support the validity assessment.
-
02
Clinical interview
Structured interview focusing on symptom presentation, functional impact, and inconsistencies. Observations on demeanour, speech, and emotional expression are documented.
-
03
Standardised testing
The paulhus deception scales and other symptom validity tests are administered where clinically indicated. Test selection and interpretation are justified in the report.
-
04
Collateral evidence
Review of witness statements, employment records, and other collateral sources to assess consistency with reported symptoms. Discrepancies are analysed and reported.
-
05
Formulation & opinion
Clinical formulation integrating interview findings, test results, and collateral evidence. The expert’s opinion on symptom validity is clearly stated, with limitations acknowledged.
Proceedings where
validity is contested.
Our chambers accepts instructions for malingering and symptom validity assessments across civil, criminal, and family proceedings. Reports are prepared in compliance with the relevant procedural rules and guidance.
Questions from
solicitors we work with.
Can the paulhus deception scales be used in criminal proceedings?
Yes. The paulhus deception scales are accepted in criminal proceedings under CrimPR 19, provided the expert holds appropriate qualifications and the test is administered and interpreted in accordance with professional guidelines.
How do your experts address symptom exaggeration without overstepping into credibility?
By focusing on symptom validity. Our reports assess the consistency and plausibility of symptom presentation using standardised tests and clinical observation, without commenting on the claimant’s credibility, which is a matter for the court.
Are remote assessments suitable for malingering assessments?
In some cases. Remote assessments may be appropriate where the expert can adequately observe symptom presentation and administer tests. However, in-person assessments are recommended for complex cases or where test validity may be compromised.
What is the turnaround time for a symptom validity test expert witness report?
6–8 weeks from records. Allocation to an expert occurs within 48 hours, and assessments are scheduled within four to six weeks. Court-deadline cases are prioritised with expedited timetables agreed at intake.
Do your experts attend joint expert discussions and trial?
Yes. Attendance at joint expert discussions under CPR 35.12 and preparation of joint statements are included in the instruction. Experts are available to give oral evidence at trial, in person or via secure video link.
Can a feigning assessment report be used in family court proceedings?
Yes. Our chambers prepares symptom validity reports for family proceedings under FPR 25, where the genuineness of psychological symptoms is in dispute, such as in care proceedings or parental capacity assessments.
Need a malingering assessment
expert for your case?
Send a brief case summary — claimant details, procedural stage, and any time-critical deadlines — and our chambers will confirm expert availability, scope, and timescales within one working day.