Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • "Causation Claim" x
  • Refine by Access: All content x
Clear All
Robert J. Barth
and
Christopher R. Brigham

to claiming that a rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise, and then attempting to justify that claim by noting that the sun rose almost immediately after the rooster crowed. Such reasoning based only on temporal correlation has been singled out as something that needs to be avoided when evaluating or attempting to justify a causation claim. 8 , 9 , 12 Applying the Standard Method for Evaluating Causation Claims The standard method for causation analysis involves six steps in the order outlined below. For a causation claim to be credible, each step must be

in AMA Guides® Newsletter
Robert J Barth

Causation . First, page 324 in Causation explains, in a brief fashion, that this common basis for causation claims is not credible because such reports from examinees are not reliable. Relevant scientific findings have been more extensively reviewed in a more recent AMA Guides library publication. 8 Such findings include: when an examinee blames someone else for his or her injury or accident, and claims that he or she never experienced relevant health problems before the injury or accident; such denials of pre-existing health problems are almost always found to be

in AMA Guides® Newsletter
Robert J. Barth

al). If application of that protocol is beyond the scope of the evaluator/reviewer's referral issues, then consideration should be given to recommending that any such seemingly untenable causation claims should be given a full review in accordance with that protocol. Note: If the evaluator/reviewer is specifically aware of scientific literature that contradicts a claim that the general medical findings explain the chronic pain, then consideration can be given to referencing that literature (even if a causation analysis has not been requested). If the examinee

in AMA Guides® Newsletter