Secondary Victim Claims for Psychiatric Injury Assignment Sample

• Type Assignment
• Downloads540
• Pages21
• Words5195

Task 1: Memorandum

To: Supervising Partner

From: [Student Name]

Date: [current date, 2024]

Re: Kit Merriot, The Recognition of Psychiatric Injury as Secondary Victim

Introduction

This memorandum is intended for the examination of the preliminary hypothesis on Kit Merriot’s possible psychological injury claim as a second-degree victim of a traumatic event of his fiancée, Maxine, caused by misdiagnosis and medical acute condition in “West Somerton Hospital”. Kit has since been diagnosed by a psychiatrist to have a condition known as “posttraumatic stress disorder” (PTSD) after these. In this memorandum, it will be necessary to review the laws concerning secondary victim claims and also look at new precedents to ascertain the possibility of winning Kit’s case. This content provides valuable help in assignment writing for students studying this complex legal topic.

Rules on Secondary Victim’s Rights: The Legal Regime

A secondary victim is one who sustains a psychiatric harm due to the death, “psycho-emotional shock”, and /or risk to another person due to the defendant’s carelessness. The principal authority on secondary victims’ claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 where the following control mechanics were developed which a claimant must meet so as to be awarded damages as a secondary victim. These are:

1. A blood relational closeness, romantic involvement, or equivalent with the primary victim;
2. This means, for example, that the claimant was able to be at the scene of the event or occurred immediately after the event with the significance of temporal and spatial closeness.
3. The psychiatric injury must be incurred by direct observation of the event and not through hearing, reading or being told about it.
4. The psychiatric injury should be a more defined psychiatric illness, as opposed to normal upset or distress.

Application to Kit’s Claim

1. Close Tie of Love and Affection:

• Kit fulfils the first criterion because he had intimate acquaintance with Maxine, his fiancée^[1]. This muchas omitted spouses or engaged couple as generally, courts presume that there is a close tie of love and affection between the two, as was also depicted in McLoughlin v O’B rien [1983] 1 AC 410 where the House of Lords has extended the liability to other members of the family who have witnessed someone they love suffering.

2. Proximity to the Event:

• Kit witnessed a relapse at home before Maxine fainted and took her to the hospital. Also he saw her when she was in severe distress when waiting for the operation and when admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. The recent case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] when joined with Polmear v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust and Purchase v Ahmed make a refinement in this area of the law. Finally, although in Paul the claimant can see the events occurred, he was able to see only the overall shocked event at the other end as opposed to witnessing only the last event that resulted from misdiagnosis. Whereas, Kit may be able to support his statement by leaning to this liberal definition since he was at Maxine’s side from fall to surgery to the ICU.

3. Direct Perception of the Event:

• In Alcock the court highlighted that this has to be seen by the claimant directly and not just heard about it. Kit clenched through Maxine’s utter demoralization; she saw her agony, and her near comatose state both before and after surgery^[2]. As known from the case of Paul, it would be possible to state that it is not necessary to see how the injury or death occurred, or was caused, as long as the chain of causation is not interrupted and the claimant suffers its consequences. Kit could probably have been beside Maxine during her moments of medical crisis thus exposing him to her suffering which fulfills this element.

4. Recognized Psychiatric Condition:

• Specifically, Kit has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and this fall under the DSMV’s list of recognised psychiatric injuries. This work shall also agree with the courts that PTSD being a diagnosed psychiatric injury qualifies the claimant as a secondary victim as has been determine in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455.

Challenges to Kit’s Claim

However, based on the current rules regarding claim of secondary victims in clinical negligence classes, Kit’s claim holds challenges as discussed below.

Secondary Victim Claims for Psychiatric Injury Assignment Sample

Liked This Sample? Hire Me Now

George Clark 9 Years | LLB

Paul and Others v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] succinctly captured the differences between gradual and sudden traumatic events based on how two different claims scenarios were regarded^[3]. The defendant NHS Trust in Paul contended that a wrongful death of the father was not a shocking event occasioned by a Negligent act but rather a slow deterioration of live of the patient. The appeal was allowed though the court proposes that the opportunities of the secondary victim claims in the context of the medical negligence may be much wider than it has been considered before.

In the case Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 194 the decision of the Court of Appeal was that the secondary victim claim cannot be allowed because the psychiatric damage occurred not due to observing a single traumatic occasion but the sored up consequences of the primary accident. Kit’s claim may be equally vulnerable if there is an attempt to state that Maxine had a medical condition which prevented her from diagnosing and that condition was a continuous state rather than a sudden event^[4]. There is however strong authority of Paul arguing that traumatic events which occur in the context of medical negligence for example the time when Maxine fainted can still claim the status of a secondary victim.

Conclusion

According to the factors presented in the case, Kit Merriott seems to satisfy the four modes with which the clearing house expects a secondary victim claim, and they include: love and affection relationship with Maxine, nearness of the event and aftermath, Ashley’s direct observation of the traumatic incidences, and PTSD as a diagnosed condition. There’s a recent case that bridges the chance for the secondary victims, for instance, the Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] case that widen the opportunities for medical misdiagnosis compensation on behalf of secondary victims, and that show that Kit’s claim has a reasonable prospective success. Nevertheless, there is grounds that go against kit’s claim due to the progressive character of the injury as well as the difficulties that appear when the case is based on clinical negligence, and when applying the scenario of a secondary victim^[5]. Additional direction from this case and any ensuing decision(s) will be useful in counsel Kit regarding prospects of success in his action.

Task 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Secondary victim claims especially in clinical negligence scenarios are generally somewhat dicey in the legal practice, especially where the claim relates to psychiatric harm. Secondary victims in contrast to primary ones are not directly affected with physically or economically driven effects as well as they are not harmed through direct violence; instead, they are the ones who experience deep emotional or psychological severities due to the harm inflicted to others. The law has also set high tests to place such injuries making it hard to prove, as explained by Tumelty on the legal hurdles involved in proving psychiatric harm^[6]. In the context of healthcare organizations, this problem is aggravated by the presence of the “second victims,” which refers to healthcare workers who exhibit signs of psychological trauma in connection with adverse events in patients’ experience. Drawing on a sample of 124 healthcare professionals that worked during the COVID-19 pandemic, Nydoo et al. discussed the rising awareness of such a phenomenon and its devastating consequences resulting in significant negative mental health outcomes experienced by the healthcare professionals^[7].

Legal Framework for Secondary Victim Claims

Defining the Second Victim:

Second victims are defined as individuals in healthcare professions that experience psychological adverse effects due to adverse events at the clinical workplace. According to Tumelty, the meaning of this term is debatable with reference to patient care and health policies. Tumelty writes that despite being crucial for understanding the amount of stress on the healthcare providers, the term is bounded with debates and therefore it is without standard definition. This debate is important because it shapes the future vision and provisions given to enhancing the health care workers morale and stability^[8].

Nydoo et al offer a good review of literature on second victim and discusses some of the important aspects of mental health and stress among the second victim healthcare professionals. Psychological and Occupational Impacts:

In their study, secondary traumatic stress is defined by Bock et al. focusing on the mental health concerns and work issues for the second victims. From their experience, they describe their discovery how much can a clinician is affected psychologically through the occurrence of traumatic events at the working place in extreme detail and how this affects job performance besides personal life^[9].

Schiess et al examine the circumstances surrounding second victims in acute-somatic inpatient health care organizations. Their qualitative metasynthesis offers insights to the various emotional and psychological sequences that these professionals undergo offering the need for supportive intercessions and proper management techniques to computation off the physical influence of such events^[10].

The Second Victim Phenomenon in Healthcare

Legal and Ethical Challenges:

Drawing for Tumelty on the system of medical negligence, she condemns the adversarial legal system that is not effective in the processing of all the second victim cases. This conflict creates a heightened effect of an already stressful and adversarial process for second victims and undermines progress for just resolutions of second victim caregivers and clinicians^[11].

Chen and colleagues analyze the effects of unexpected adverse events to the second victims, more specifically, they consider the ethical and professional issues in the healthcare workplace. Second, the authors emphasise that an improvement in the mental and professional support and the suggested changes in the policies for second victims is crucial to their well-being^[12].

Trauma-Informed Assessments:

Goldenson, Brodsky, & Perlin underline, that trauma informed approach is necessary for forensic mental health assessment of second victims. It can be stated that their work is consistent with the tenets of therapeutic jurisprudence in that they endorse the need for the improvement of the compassionate approach to the forensic assessment of healthcare professionals who have experienced trauma^[13].

Trauma and Psychiatric Injury in Clinical Negligence Cases

Nature of Psychiatric Harm:

In clinical negligence claims, psychiatric damage thus becomes a rather complicated factor. This type of harm involves all psychological injuries that could happen from traumatic clinical events which include medical malpractice or adverse outcomes. In order to determine the nature and prevalence of psychiatric injuries, one has to understand their symptoms and consequences. In the related study, Giannopoulou et al. have given a detailed description of PTSD and other psychopathological symptoms and how these can manifest in secondary survivors especially and particularly in health care providers dealing with traumatic events in their workplace. In their study, that underlines that second-tier victims — people affected by clinical negligence but not directly — can have PTSD, anxiety, and depression. These conditions can significantly impact their psychological health and job productivity, thus the importance of proper treatment and help^[14].

Four, there are severe legal obstacles in controlling these forms of psychiatric harm. Such issues are nicely discussed by Al Jowf, Al Mutairi, and Al Yahya in regards to the legal aspect of psychiatric injury claims. They consider the challenges of explaining such injuries before a court of law by pointing out that unlike purely physical injuries, psychellic injuries are usually more challenging to prove especially when the injury is supposed to have been sustained as a result of an emotional shock since such injuries require corroborated factual evidence. Not surprisingly, proving causation between clinical negligence and the psychiatric injury can be challenging because expert opinions are usually required and the psychological assessments may be time-consuming. It is not easy to bring these claims to a close and it may affect the experiences of the secondary victims who want to seek reparations^[15].

Psychological and Occupational Impacts:

There is potential burnout in the amount of stress the healthcare workers exposed to secondary traumatic stress. Psychological and occupational consequences which Bock et al. highlight are as follows: mental health risks and work-related difficulties in traumatic events related to clinical negligence. In their studies, they stress on the need to tackle the said concerns decisively in order to al Least, reduce their impact on healthcare workers. These professionals need psychological assistance and the right management of the risks involved while they are practicing their careers, so that they can manage stress and function at optimum^[16].

To this Hansen et al. and Schiess et al. , who investigate the second victims’ experiences in the inpatient context. Socor: The work of Asher & Spector in this issue is a qualitative metasynthesis that offers an understanding of personal and professional realities faced by such persons. It is in concurrence with their study which discusses that second victims undergo substantial levels of emotional upset besides facing work-related challenges most of the time.

Critiques and Reforms of the Adversarial System

Effectiveness of the Adversarial System:

The structure of the legal adjudication based on the competition of the parties and the opposition between them intrinsic to the adversarial system raises considerable difficulties in the majority of clinical negligence cases where psychiatric harm is claimed. This system is criticized by Tumelty mainly where legal redress for psychiatric harm is an important ingredient. This strategy is not likely to meet the secondary victims’ needs because they are generally in poor mental and emotional state. Tumelty explains that critical facets of the adversarial system such as, confrontation and adversarial strategies undermine the psychological recoveries of secondary victims and distort the quest for justice. The practical and formal requirements of the adversarial process may, however, add a burden to these persons and can make them dissatisfied with the systems.

Legal Reforms and Non-Adversarial Mechanisms:

Due to the perceived shortcoming in adversarial system, there have been campaigns for changes in the law as well as the use of non adversarial solutions. After discussing the many problems associated with the adversarial approach, Smith et al. consider various reforms such as no-fault compensation schemes which seemed to have the potential of correcting some of the flaws. These other avenues have been sought to offer a fair and accommodating direction in handling secondary victims’ cases so as to lower the degree of certainties that is demanded in pursuing claims for psychiatric harm. The benefits are the ability to deliver a more compassionate and efficient approaches to satisfy the needs of the secondary victims by implementing no-fault compensation systems thus reducing the adversarial tone of the conventional legal processes^[17].

Future Directions in Secondary Victim Claims

Reforms and Future Directions:

Therefore, as ideas about the second victim phenomenon develop, there is an increased focus towards legal changes in secondary victims’ cases. Goldenson et al. stress the need to employ trauma-sensitive legal approaches to incorporate secondary victim’s needs. They also stress that it is possible to improve the legal process with the help of trauma-consciousness and use the knowledge of the psychological effects of trauma in secondary victims. Such reforms could enhance a legal system’s respect and understanding that aims at offering a second victim a proper attention let alone care in the course of the trial.

Further, Smith et al. look at other models of compensation in order to offer further assistance to secondary victims. According to such analysis their thinking implies that such schemes could solve some of the current problems by alleviating the burden of proof in cases of psychiatric injury claims. In a similar respect, the adoption of no-fault compensation systems may present a far more practical and less polarized approach to handling of such claims thus enhancing the prospects of obtaining justice and compensation for the secondary victims of clinical negligence.

The campaign for reform also raises the issue of treatment in large systems Rajagopal 2011, pp 151,154 In other words, reform also underscores the imperative for large system change as opposed to case management. In their study, Goldenson et al. claim that incorporating TIP in legal models not only helps identify secondary mental impact on victims but also to make them feel more comfortable during the trial process. This integration processes mean legal education to prepare and equip legal professionals with the ability to understand the mental health implication of the secondary victims, thus leading to trauma-sensitive approach to cases. Using this approach it is also helpful in trying to fashion more sensible and patient-friendly frameworks of what constitutes clinical negligence and its traumatic effects on healthcare professionals and others.

Further, Razak A also claim that no-fault compensation schemes can reduce the adversarial pressures of legal approaches by transforming the disputing model from fault to compensation for loss. Such schemes can easily help facilitate closures of the claims and also minimize the affective toll on the claimants. Due to the complete removal of a need to prove negligence and causationlink between it and psychiatric injury, no-fault systems could be a viable solution that would guarantee the assistance that secondary victims require to be provided in the shortest time possible without having to endure other hurtful legal processes.

Conclusion

The analysis of the second victim phenomenon indicates potential difficulties and prospects for improvement of the legal framework governing the claims of secondary victims in the sphere of healthcare. Main learning also emphasizes devastating psychological consequences of clinical negligence to both clinicians and patients which call for legal remedies. The current adversarial system seems to further worsen the trauma situation that the secondary victims have to endure implying the need for reform.

Goldenson et al. in their article published in 2022 and Smith et al. in their article that was also published in 2022, put forward certain recommendations that may be useful to enhance support for secondary victims. Goldenson et al. called for more trauma-sensitive legal systems, which may improve the ability of the legal system addressing a societal issue by considering conceptualization of trauma. This approach holds a potential of enhancing the legal process of secondary victims through recognition and meet their need. Further, Smith et al. suggest other forms of compensation delivery mechanisms, that might be useful such as no fault systems; these come with less burden on applicants in terms of offering concrete evidence and come with quicker and fairer compensation.

Adopting these reforms could radically alter legal reality of the situation for secondary victims, where they will be helped and given justice while also preventing additional psychological trauma. Use of trauma-informed ideals and no-fault claims are a step in the right direction in enhancing a far more humane and efficient manner of handling claims in clinical negligence.

Task 3: Current Legal Awareness

Introduction

The new development in damages by secondary victims of clinical negligence is a blend of law and mental health. ‘Secondary victims’, who include medical practitioners and others damaged emotionally and psychologically as a result of medical malpractice, have especially developed special issues at the common law^[18]. The literature published in recent years indicates the state of this legal situation providing insight into the necessity of reform for these people. This paper offers a preliminary analysis of the present state of the legal specifying recommended changes based the findings of other scholars.

Understanding the second victim phenomenon

Second victims can be identified as the healthcare for which adverse medical events produce psychological harm beyond what is known as the first violating patient. Tumelty (2021) this means that while there is disagreement over the precise meaning of this term and the conditions governing its application in the legal field, establishing the rights of second-degree victims is very problematical^[19]. That is why the nature of psychiatric injury and its proof are at the core of such problems. Tumelty points out that a controversy over the term causes legal claims to be contentious and difficult for secondary victims to get the compensation they deserve.

This assignment presents a clearer but still rather general discussion of the second victim phenomenon in healthcare organizations by Nydoo et al. (2020). They point out the development of awareness of the psychological consequences on the healthcare workers involved in specific adverse events. This recognition is important because it influences both legal and institutional actions; the need to have a legal framework that recognises these impacts fully.

Psychological and Occupational Impacts

Last but not the least; it is an uncompromising fact that the psychological and occupational effects on the secondary victims are far-reaching. In their systematic review, Bock et al. (2020) analyse secondary traumatic stress of the healthcare staff that can cause severe mental health problems and diminish productivity due to the exposition to the traumatizing events. It was also evident from this research that there is need to conduct more research on mental health risks of the secondary victims.

Schiess et al. , (2021) build on these impacts through a qualitative metasynthesis of HCPs’ experiences. These studies capture the psychological impact that secondary victimization has on people and this underlines the reviewing need for supportive interventions by the health care sector and the legal system.

Legal and Ethical Challenges

There are many legal aspects that are concerning with respect to secondary victim claims. Tumelty (2023) and he pointed out that there are flaws in pursuing justice for medical negligence from an adversarial system of justice for the second victims^[20]. He seems to aver that courtesy of the adversarial nature of the system, the secondary victim struggles to get adequate compensation that will enable him/her to heal from trauma.

Chen et al. (2023) have devoted their article to explaining the effects of shock-related lost chances on the secondary victims and the standards of ethical and professional behavior in the practice of healthcare^[21]. Based on the research, primary and secondary victims may find that current laws may not effectively address their needs due to the limitations of current legal reforms which fail to present a clear understanding of the conditions secondary victims have to face.

Trauma-Informed Assessments

As could be seen, the role of trauma-sensitive methods is gradually being appreciated in the course of the legal evaluation. In an article by Goldenson, Brodsky, and Perlin (2022) the authors highlight the importance of using trauma informed forensic mental health assessments and how such a practice entails therapeutic jurisprudence^[22]. They suggest that bringing the trauma influenced considerations into the endeavours of legal analysis can lead to a substantial enhancement of care for secondary victims in clinical contexts.

Current Proposals and a Look to the Future

When awareness of the second victim phenomenon is enhanced; so also is the need to change. Goldenson et al. (2022) encourage lawmakers and legal practitioners to recognise secondary trauma stimulated by an instance with more consideration for a secondary victim^[23]. They note that can such reforms strengthen the possibility of the legal process by the incorporation of a better understanding of trauma, which will lead to increased sensitivity of legal procedures.

Smith et al. (2022) look at similar compensation options, for example no fault systems to determine how the secondary victims can get more support. It is their view that these schemes could hold potential to deal with some of the issues by lowering the specifications of burden of proof in psychiatric injury cases^[24]. Adopting no fault compensation machinery can potentially lead to a better, less-confrontational way of addressing the claims; help secure a fair and timely access to justice for the secondary victims, as desired.

Conclusion

Secondary victims of clinical negligence as a concept has not been a new development but the legal structure surrounding it is still unclear and in development. In the current day research, there are major problems identified with the existing law in as much as it pertains the psychology type of injury. The conflict model that forms the backbone of the current legal processes seems to aggravate the trauma of secondary victims thus the need to explore for reforms.

Legal and cultural changes as well as methods of organizational redesign appear as a potential approach for development. These changes must be welcomed as they enhance the understanding of trauma and decrease the burden of proof for claimants, enhancing the legal course for secondary victims in order that they acquire the appropriate assist and justice they deserve. Therefore, given the current state of developments we can see that further research and lobbying will be crucial for a more efficient and humane approach to handling secondary victim claims in clinical negligence cases.

Reference List

Journals

• Tumelty ME, 'The Second Victim: A Contested Term?' (2021) 17 Journal of Patient Safety e1488.
• Tumelty ME, 'Plaintiff Aims in Medical Negligence Disputes: Limitations of an Adversarial System' (2023) 31(2) Medical Law Review 226.
• Goldenson J, Brodsky SL and Perlin ML, 'Trauma-Informed Forensic Mental Health Assessment: Practical Implications, Ethical Tensions, and Alignment with Therapeutic Jurisprudence Principles' (2022) 28(2) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 226.
• Bock C, Heitland I, Zimmermann T, Winter L and Kahl KG, 'Secondary Traumatic Stress, Mental State, and Work Ability in Nurses—Results of a Psychological Risk Assessment at a University Hospital' (2020) 11 Frontiers in Psychiatry 298.
• Al Jowf GI, Ahmed ZT, An N, Reijnders RA, Ambrosino E, Rutten BP, de Nijs L and Eijssen LM, 'A Public Health Perspective of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder' (2022) 19(11) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6474.
• Giannopoulou I, Galinaki S, Kollintza E, Adamaki M, Kympouropoulos S, Alevyzakis E, Tsamakis K, Tsangaris I, Spandidos DA, Siafakas N and Zoumpourlis V, 'COVID-19 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Perfect "Storm" for Mental Health' (2021) 22(4) Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 1.
• Nydoo P, Pillay BJ, Naicker T and Moodley J, 'The Second Victim Phenomenon in Health Care: A Literature Review' (2020) 48(6) Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 629.
• Schiess C, Schwappach D, Schwendimann R, Vanhaecht K, Burgstaller M and Senn B, 'A Transactional "Second-Victim" Model—Experiences of Affected Healthcare Professionals in Acute-Somatic Inpatient Settings: A Qualitative Metasynthesis' (2021) 17(8) Journal of Patient Safety e1001.
• Nolan D, 'Reining in Vicarious Liability' (2020) 49(4) Industrial Law Journal 609.
• Smith O, Daly E, Herriott C and Willmott D, 'State Compensation as Rape Justice: Are Public Attitudes a Legitimate Foundation for Reform of the UK’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme?' (2022) 6(1) Journal of Gender-Based Violence 79.
• Chen S, Skidmore S, Ferrigno BN and Sade RM, 'The Second Victim of Unanticipated Adverse Events' (2023) 166(3) The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 890.
• Razak A, 'Criminal Law Protection Policy for Victims of Malpractice Crimes in the Medical Field' (2023).
• Loewenstein RJ, ‘Firebug! Dissociative Identity Disorder? Malingering? Or…? An Intensive Case Study of an Arsonist’ (2020) 13(2) Psychological Injury and Law 187-224.
• McMichael BJ, ‘Insuring Apologies’ (2020) 48 Florida State University Law Review 651.
• Karjoko L., Handayani, I.G.A.K.R., Jaelani, A.K., Barkhuizen, J. and Hayat, M.J., ‘The Urgency of Restorative Justice on Medical Dispute Resolution in Indonesia’ (2021) 16(2) Al-Ihkam: Jurnal Hukum & Pranata Sosial 362-392.
• Citron, D.K. and Solove, D.J., ‘Privacy Harms’ (2022) 102 Boston University Law Review 793.
• Harrison, A.G. and Sparks, R., ‘Disability Diagnoses: Seven Sins of Clinicians’ (2022) 15(3) Psychological Injury and Law 268-286.
• Busch, I.M., Saxena, A. and Wu, A.W., ‘Putting the Patient in Patient Safety Investigations: Barriers and Strategies for Involvement’ (2021) 17(5) Journal of Patient Safety 358-362.
• Tshoane, S.M., Bello, P.O., Mofokeng, J.T. and Olutola, A.A., ‘Exploration of the Gaps in the Enactment and Implementation of the Domestic Violence Act of South Africa’ (2023) 5(1) Khazanah Hukum 59-80.
• Morley, G., Bradbury‐Jones, C. and Ives, J., ‘The Moral Distress Model: An Empirically Informed Guide for Moral Distress Interventions’ (2022) 31(9-10) Journal of Clinical Nursing 1309-1326.
• Stewart, S., Willmott, D., Murphy, A. and Phillips, C., “I Thought I’m Better off Just Trying to Put This Behind Me”–A Contemporary Approach to Understanding Why Women Decide Not to Report Sexual Violence’ (2024) 35(1) The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 85-101.
• Liang, F., Liu, J., Zhou, H. and Liu, P., ‘Inequality in the Last Resort: How Medical Appraisal Affects Malpractice Litigations in China’ (2021) 135 International Journal of Legal Medicine 1047-1054.
• Zutah, J., Yin, E.T., Atupare, P.A. and Korankye-Sakyi, F.K., ‘Licensed to Kill? Contextualising Medical Misconduct, Malpractice and the Law in Ghana’ (2021) Contextualising Medical Misconduct, Malpractice and the Law in Ghana 49-118.
• Vanhala, L. and Kinghan, J., ‘The “Madness” of Accessing Justice: Legal Mobilisation, Welfare Benefits and Empowerment’ (2022) 44(1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 22-41.
• ^[1] Loewenstein RJ, ‘Firebug! Dissociative Identity Disorder? Malingering? Or…? An Intensive Case Study of an Arsonist’ (2020) 13(2) Psychological Injury and Law 187-224.
• ^[2] McMichael BJ, ‘Insuring Apologies’ (2020) 48 Florida State University Law Review 651 
• ^[3] Citron, D.K. and Solove, D.J., ‘Privacy Harms’ (2022) 102 Boston University Law Review 793.
• ^[4] Karjoko L., Handayani, I.G.A.K.R., Jaelani, A.K., Barkhuizen, J. and Hayat, M.J., ‘The Urgency of Restorative Justice on Medical Dispute Resolution in Indonesia’ (2021) 16(2) Al-Ihkam: Jurnal Hukum & Pranata Sosial 362-392.
• ^[5] Harrison, A.G. and Sparks, R., ‘Disability Diagnoses: Seven Sins of Clinicians’ (2022) 15(3) Psychological Injury and Law 268-286. 
• ^[6]Tumelty ME, 'The Second Victim: A Contested Term?' (2021) 17 Journal of Patient Safety e1488.
• ^[7]Nydoo P, Pillay BJ, Naicker T and Moodley J, 'The Second Victim Phenomenon in Health Care: A Literature Review' (2020) 48(6) Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 629.
• ^[8]Tumelty ME, 'The Second Victim: A Contested Term?' (2021) 17 Journal of Patient Safety e1488.
• ^[9]Bock C, Heitland I, Zimmermann T, Winter L and Kahl KG, 'Secondary Traumatic Stress, Mental State, and Work Ability in Nurses—Results of a Psychological Risk Assessment at a University Hospital' (2020) 11 Frontiers in Psychiatry 298.
• ^[10]Schiess C, Schwappach D, Schwendimann R, Vanhaecht K, Burgstaller M and Senn B, 'A Transactional "Second-Victim" Model—Experiences of Affected Healthcare Professionals in Acute-Somatic Inpatient Settings: A Qualitative Metasynthesis' (2021) 17(8) Journal of Patient Safety e1001.
• ^[11]Tumelty ME, 'Plaintiff Aims in Medical Negligence Disputes: Limitations of an Adversarial System' (2023) 31(2) Medical Law Review 226.
• ^[12]Chen S, Skidmore S, Ferrigno BN and Sade RM, 'The Second Victim of Unanticipated Adverse Events' (2023) 166(3) The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 890.
• ^[13]Goldenson J, Brodsky SL and Perlin ML, 'Trauma-Informed Forensic Mental Health Assessment: Practical Implications, Ethical Tensions, and Alignment with Therapeutic Jurisprudence Principles' (2022) 28(2) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 226.
• ^[14]Giannopoulou I, Galinaki S, Kollintza E, Adamaki M, Kympouropoulos S, Alevyzakis E, Tsamakis K, Tsangaris I, Spandidos DA, Siafakas N and Zoumpourlis V, 'COVID-19 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: The Perfect "Storm" for Mental Health' (2021) 22(4) Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 1.
• ^[15]Al Jowf GI, Ahmed ZT, An N, Reijnders RA, Ambrosino E, Rutten BP, de Nijs L and Eijssen LM, 'A Public Health Perspective of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder' (2022) 19(11) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6474.
• ^[16]Razak A, 'Criminal Law Protection Policy for Victims of Malpractice Crimes in the Medical Field' (2023).
• ^[17]Smith O, Daly E, Herriott C and Willmott D, 'State Compensation as Rape Justice: Are Public Attitudes a Legitimate Foundation for Reform of the UK’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme?' (2022) 6(1) Journal of Gender-Based Violence 79.
• ^[18] Tshoane, S.M., Bello, P.O., Mofokeng, J.T. and Olutola, A.A., ‘Exploration of the Gaps in the Enactment and Implementation of the Domestic Violence Act of South Africa’ (2023) 5(1) Khazanah Hukum 59-80.
• ^[19] Busch, I.M., Saxena, A. and Wu, A.W., ‘Putting the Patient in Patient Safety Investigations: Barriers and Strategies for Involvement’ (2021) 17(5) Journal of Patient Safety 358-362.
• ^[20] Morley, G., Bradbury‐Jones, C. and Ives, J., ‘The Moral Distress Model: An Empirically Informed Guide for Moral Distress Interventions’ (2022) 31(9-10) Journal of Clinical Nursing 1309-1326.
• ^[21] Stewart, S., Willmott, D., Murphy, A. and Phillips, C., “I Thought I’m Better off Just Trying to Put This Behind Me”–A Contemporary Approach to Understanding Why Women Decide Not to Report Sexual Violence’ (2024) 35(1) The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 85-101.
• ^[22] Vanhala, L. and Kinghan, J., ‘The “Madness” of Accessing Justice: Legal Mobilisation, Welfare Benefits and Empowerment’ (2022) 44(1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 22-41.
• ^[23] Liang, F., Liu, J., Zhou, H. and Liu, P., ‘Inequality in the Last Resort: How Medical Appraisal Affects Malpractice Litigations in China’ (2021) 135 International Journal of Legal Medicine 1047-1054.
• ^[24] Zutah, J., Yin, E.T., Atupare, P.A. and Korankye-Sakyi, F.K., ‘Licensed to Kill? Contextualising Medical Misconduct, Malpractice and the Law in Ghana’ (2021) Contextualising Medical Misconduct, Malpractice and the Law in Ghana 49-118.