Discussion: View Thread

Dear Listserv Members:

I received a request from a defense attorney to respond to a Plaintiff experts report.  In this instance, I was unable to interview the evaluee. The attorney has asked me to respond to the expert's statement: …" a threshold for any vocational analysis is to meet with an individual and complete a vocational interview and analysis."  Please let me know if this statement is accurate.  If yes, why, and if not, why not.

My response is this statement is not accurate.  In the field of Forensic Rehabilitation, there are a myriad of reasons why this statement is incorrect.  First, the statement implies using the word "threshold" that if a forensic Vocational Evaluation is performed without an interview, it is invalid.  There are scenarios in our field where evaluators are asked to perform vocational evaluations on an evaluee and interviewing them is not possible.  The most common example is in a Wrongful Death matter.  Other examples include in the Social Security Disability venue where vocational experts are asked to classify an individual's work based on a file review.  A full vocational evaluation is not possible in this venue.  In other cases, such as an individual being incarcerated may not permit the induvial to be interviewed.  Performing a vocational evaluation on a child, we in this case, have to look to their parents or family for information.  In some venues we work, as vocational experts, we are not permitted by the opposing side or there may be time constraints that do not afford the opportunity to interview the evaluee.

In the field of vocational rehabilitation, we have a standardized methodology we follow a generally accepted methodology.  In some instances, we can draw conclusions based on the evaluee's demographics, education history, work history, and any alleged limitations an evaluee may have.  While our standard practice to interview evaluee's in vocational evaluation, it is not always possible.  This does not make the evaluation or opinions invalid.  This is not a "threshold issue, but an issue of the vocational interview being a well-accepted tool as part of the standard methodology used in vocational evaluations.  The vocational interview is part of a standardized practice, when able to do so, but does not preclude the evaluator from performing a quality analysis.  On the other hand, while a vocational interview is performed, it can be done in a very systematic manner which acts as a tool to provide information to inform the vocational conclusion.  A vocational interview can also be performed in a very short and shoddy manner that does not necessarily render quality.  In Forensic Rehabilitation, a vocational there is a standardized methodology we follow in our field.  The interview is not a "threshold" but a tool to be used as "Best Practices" whenever possible.

What does the Listserv think?

Dear Listserv Members:

I received a request from a defense attorney to respond to a Plaintiff experts report.  In this instance, I was unable to interview the evaluee. The attorney has asked me to respond to the expert's statement: …" a threshold for any vocational analysis is to meet with an individual and complete a vocational interview and analysis."  Please let me know if this statement is accurate.  If yes, why, and if not, why not.

My response is this statement is not accurate.  In the field of Forensic Rehabilitation, there are a myriad of reasons why this statement is incorrect.  First, the statement implies using the word "threshold" that if a forensic Vocational Evaluation is performed without an interview, it is invalid.  There are scenarios in our field where evaluators are asked to perform vocational evaluations on an evaluee and interviewing them is not possible.  The most common example is in a Wrongful Death matter.  Other examples include in the Social Security Disability venue where vocational experts are asked to classify an individual's work based on a file review.  A full vocational evaluation is not possible in this venue.  In other cases, such as an individual being incarcerated may not permit the induvial to be interviewed.  Performing a vocational evaluation on a child, we in this case, have to look to their parents or family for information.  In some venues we work, as vocational experts, we are not permitted by the opposing side or there may be time constraints that do not afford the opportunity to interview the evaluee.

In the field of vocational rehabilitation, we have a standardized methodology we follow a generally accepted methodology.  In some instances, we can draw conclusions based on the evaluee's demographics, education history, work history, and any alleged limitations an evaluee may have.  While our standard practice to interview evaluee's in vocational evaluation, it is not always possible.  This does not make the evaluation or opinions invalid.  This is not a "threshold issue, but an issue of the vocational interview being a well-accepted tool as part of the standard methodology used in vocational evaluations.  The vocational interview is part of a standardized practice, when able to do so, but does not preclude the evaluator from performing a quality analysis.  On the other hand, while a vocational interview is performed, it can be done in a very systematic manner which acts as a tool to provide information to inform the vocational conclusion.  A vocational interview can also be performed in a very short and shoddy manner that does not necessarily render quality.  In Forensic Rehabilitation, a vocational there is a standardized methodology we follow in our field.  The interview is not a "threshold" but a tool to be used as "Best Practices" whenever possible.

What does the Listserv think?

Dear Listserv Members:

I received a request from a defense attorney to respond to a Plaintiff experts report.  In this instance, I was unable to interview the evaluee. The attorney has asked me to respond to the expert's statement: …" a threshold for any vocational analysis is to meet with an individual and complete a vocational interview and analysis."  Please let me know if this statement is accurate.  If yes, why, and if not, why not.

My response is this statement is not accurate.  In the field of Forensic Rehabilitation, there are a myriad of reasons why this statement is incorrect.  First, the statement implies using the word "threshold" that if a forensic Vocational Evaluation is performed without an interview, it is invalid.  There are scenarios in our field where evaluators are asked to perform vocational evaluations on an evaluee and interviewing them is not possible.  The most common example is in a Wrongful Death matter.  Other examples include in the Social Security Disability venue where vocational experts are asked to classify an individual's work based on a file review.  A full vocational evaluation is not possible in this venue.  In other cases, such as an individual being incarcerated may not permit the induvial to be interviewed.  Performing a vocational evaluation on a child, we in this case, have to look to their parents or family for information.  In some venues we work, as vocational experts, we are not permitted by the opposing side or there may be time constraints that do not afford the opportunity to interview the evaluee.

In the field of vocational rehabilitation, we have a standardized methodology we follow a generally accepted methodology.  In some instances, we can draw conclusions based on the evaluee's demographics, education history, work history, and any alleged limitations an evaluee may have.  While our standard practice to interview evaluee's in vocational evaluation, it is not always possible.  This does not make the evaluation or opinions invalid.  This is not a "threshold issue, but an issue of the vocational interview being a well-accepted tool as part of the standard methodology used in vocational evaluations.  The vocational interview is part of a standardized practice, when able to do so, but does not preclude the evaluator from performing a quality analysis.  On the other hand, while a vocational interview is performed, it can be done in a very systematic manner which acts as a tool to provide information to inform the vocational conclusion.  A vocational interview can also be performed in a very short and shoddy manner that does not necessarily render quality.  In Forensic Rehabilitation, a vocational there is a standardized methodology we follow in our field.  The interview is not a "threshold" but a tool to be used as "Best Practices" whenever possible.

What does the Listserv think?

Dear Listserv Members:

I received a request from a defense attorney to respond to a Plaintiff experts report.  In this instance, I was unable to interview the evaluee. The attorney has asked me to respond to the expert's statement: …" a threshold for any vocational analysis is to meet with an individual and complete a vocational interview and analysis."  Please let me know if this statement is accurate.  If yes, why, and if not, why not.

My response is this statement is not accurate.  In the field of Forensic Rehabilitation, there are a myriad of reasons why this statement is incorrect.  First, the statement implies using the word "threshold" that if a forensic Vocational Evaluation is performed without an interview, it is invalid.  There are scenarios in our field where evaluators are asked to perform vocational evaluations on an evaluee and interviewing them is not possible.  The most common example is in a Wrongful Death matter.  Other examples include in the Social Security Disability venue where vocational experts are asked to classify an individual's work based on a file review.  A full vocational evaluation is not possible in this venue.  In other cases, such as an individual being incarcerated may not permit the induvial to be interviewed.  Performing a vocational evaluation on a child, we in this case, have to look to their parents or family for information.  In some venues we work, as vocational experts, we are not permitted by the opposing side or there may be time constraints that do not afford the opportunity to interview the evaluee.

In the field of vocational rehabilitation, we have a standardized methodology we follow a generally accepted methodology.  In some instances, we can draw conclusions based on the evaluee's demographics, education history, work history, and any alleged limitations an evaluee may have.  While our standard practice to interview evaluee's in vocational evaluation, it is not always possible.  This does not make the evaluation or opinions invalid.  This is not a "threshold issue, but an issue of the vocational interview being a well-accepted tool as part of the standard methodology used in vocational evaluations.  The vocational interview is part of a standardized practice, when able to do so, but does not preclude the evaluator from performing a quality analysis.  On the other hand, while a vocational interview is performed, it can be done in a very systematic manner which acts as a tool to provide information to inform the vocational conclusion.  A vocational interview can also be performed in a very short and shoddy manner that does not necessarily render quality.  In Forensic Rehabilitation, a vocational there is a standardized methodology we follow in our field.  The interview is not a "threshold" but a tool to be used as "Best Practices" whenever possible.

What does the Listserv think?

Dear Listserv Members:

I received a request from a defense attorney to respond to a Plaintiff experts report.  In this instance, I was unable to interview the evaluee. The attorney has asked me to respond to the expert's statement: …" a threshold for any vocational analysis is to meet with an individual and complete a vocational interview and analysis."  Please let me know if this statement is accurate.  If yes, why, and if not, why not.

My response is this statement is not accurate.  In the field of Forensic Rehabilitation, there are a myriad of reasons why this statement is incorrect.  First, the statement implies using the word "threshold" that if a forensic Vocational Evaluation is performed without an interview, it is invalid.  There are scenarios in our field where evaluators are asked to perform vocational evaluations on an evaluee and interviewing them is not possible.  The most common example is in a Wrongful Death matter.  Other examples include in the Social Security Disability venue where vocational experts are asked to classify an individual's work based on a file review.  A full vocational evaluation is not possible in this venue.  In other cases, such as an individual being incarcerated may not permit the induvial to be interviewed.  Performing a vocational evaluation on a child, we in this case, have to look to their parents or family for information.  In some venues we work, as vocational experts, we are not permitted by the opposing side or there may be time constraints that do not afford the opportunity to interview the evaluee.

In the field of vocational rehabilitation, we have a standardized methodology we follow a generally accepted methodology.  In some instances, we can draw conclusions based on the evaluee's demographics, education history, work history, and any alleged limitations an evaluee may have.  While our standard practice to interview evaluee's in vocational evaluation, it is not always possible.  This does not make the evaluation or opinions invalid.  This is not a "threshold issue, but an issue of the vocational interview being a well-accepted tool as part of the standard methodology used in vocational evaluations.  The vocational interview is part of a standardized practice, when able to do so, but does not preclude the evaluator from performing a quality analysis.  On the other hand, while a vocational interview is performed, it can be done in a very systematic manner which acts as a tool to provide information to inform the vocational conclusion.  A vocational interview can also be performed in a very short and shoddy manner that does not necessarily render quality.  In Forensic Rehabilitation, a vocational there is a standardized methodology we follow in our field.  The interview is not a "threshold" but a tool to be used as "Best Practices" whenever possible.

What does the Listserv think?

Dear Listserv Members:

I received a request from a defense attorney to respond to a Plaintiff experts report.  In this instance, I was unable to interview the evaluee. The attorney has asked me to respond to the expert's statement: …" a threshold for any vocational analysis is to meet with an individual and complete a vocational interview and analysis."  Please let me know if this statement is accurate.  If yes, why, and if not, why not.

My response is this statement is not accurate.  In the field of Forensic Rehabilitation, there are a myriad of reasons why this statement is incorrect.  First, the statement implies using the word "threshold" that if a forensic Vocational Evaluation is performed without an interview, it is invalid.  There are scenarios in our field where evaluators are asked to perform vocational evaluations on an evaluee and interviewing them is not possible.  The most common example is in a Wrongful Death matter.  Other examples include in the Social Security Disability venue where vocational experts are asked to classify an individual's work based on a file review.  A full vocational evaluation is not possible in this venue.  In other cases, such as an individual being incarcerated may not permit the induvial to be interviewed.  Performing a vocational evaluation on a child, we in this case, have to look to their parents or family for information.  In some venues we work, as vocational experts, we are not permitted by the opposing side or there may be time constraints that do not afford the opportunity to interview the evaluee.

In the field of vocational rehabilitation, we have a standardized methodology we follow a generally accepted methodology.  In some instances, we can draw conclusions based on the evaluee's demographics, education history, work history, and any alleged limitations an evaluee may have.  While our standard practice to interview evaluee's in vocational evaluation, it is not always possible.  This does not make the evaluation or opinions invalid.  This is not a "threshold issue, but an issue of the vocational interview being a well-accepted tool as part of the standard methodology used in vocational evaluations.  The vocational interview is part of a standardized practice, when able to do so, but does not preclude the evaluator from performing a quality analysis.  On the other hand, while a vocational interview is performed, it can be done in a very systematic manner which acts as a tool to provide information to inform the vocational conclusion.  A vocational interview can also be performed in a very short and shoddy manner that does not necessarily render quality.  In Forensic Rehabilitation, a vocational there is a standardized methodology we follow in our field.  The interview is not a "threshold" but a tool to be used as "Best Practices" whenever possible.

What does the Listserv think?