Abstract
The field of psychological injury and law involves forensic assessments of disability and related referral questions. This article examines ethics for practice and court in forensic disability and related assessments (FDRA). Specifically, it examines ethical statements published in the psychological field. In addition, it examines multiple testing issues from an ethics point of view. It discusses cognitive biases that affect FDRA practice, but debiasing techniques, as well. The article examines an ethics practice guideline as applied to malingering. It emphasizes dealing appropriately with issues of language and racial/minority/cultural differences in FDRA. On topics concerning court, the article examines major court decisions and rules of evidence that govern practice in FDRA. The article presents legal decisions related to court, including the Supreme Court of the United States decision Daubert, the Daubert trilogy, and legal decisions that address malingering. It discusses causality in forensic disability and related assessment cases. In the end, the article presents ways of functioning effectively dealing with referrals related to psychological injury and law in adjunct topics beyond those involving effective assessment.