Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

True or false? Fake Bad Scale is voodoo science

By Mark Obbie

On the same day that the Post's Frank Ahrens quoted an anonymous Wall Street Journal reporter as saying that he and his colleagues "have noted a change in the paper's front page toward more 'urgency' and away from the longer, off-the-news features that have been a trademark of the paper," the Murdoch-owned Journal featured a longer, off-the-news feature on an interesting law trend. David Armstrong's 1,900-word piece on A1 (subscription required) traces the history of the Fake Bad Scale, and the controversies it has sparked in personal-injury litigation. The Fake Bad Scale -- and this was all new to me, even though it's been brewing for decades -- is a test used by increasing numbers of courts to identify malingering: exaggerating or faking injuries for financial gain. What I like about Armstrong's story, beyond its sheer value to those of us who weren't hip to this issue already (and its link to the full 43-question test), is its refusal to wallow in the usual binary world views of personal injury litigation, where you're either pro-trial lawyer/consumer/worker or pro-corporate defendant. This story is all about gray areas, and leaves the reader wondering whether the test is reliable, how many fakers there are to be found, and whether the test will grow or shrink in importance. Unanswered questions aren't always a desirable goal, but in this case the mystery and search for truth are the story, and it works. Let's hope that Rupert Murdoch reads and likes it, because it would be shame if the Journal abandoned this kind of front-page depth.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on March 05, 2008 (boomark / email).