Forensic Psychology Resources for California Attorneys

A useful referral begins with a specific question. These five short guides address records preparation, evaluation pathways, emotional-distress assessment, competency proceedings, and specialized SVP referrals.

Dr. Colleen Long, Psy.D. · Updated October 6, 2026

Discuss an evaluation referral →

1. What records should an attorney provide for a psychological injury evaluation?

Start with the referral question, the requested deliverable, and the relevant dates. “Evaluate psychological injury after the collision” is a starting point; questions about diagnosis, everyday functioning, treatment needs, or alternative explanations help define the actual assignment.

Before transmitting records, confirm the engagement, authority to release information, and secure transfer method. A useful preparation checklist includes:

A record index identifying the source, date range, and type of each document.
Relevant medical and mental-health records from before and after the event, including prior psychological or neuropsychological assessments when available.
Records that illuminate functioning, such as work history, school history, accommodations, or rehabilitation information relevant to the question.
A timeline distinguishing documented events from allegations or disputed information.
A list of known gaps, unavailable records, and possible collateral sources.

A complete evidentiary picture matters more than a large, disorganized file. Provide relevant material that may support different explanations, and identify duplicates. The evaluator determines what additional information is needed; an attorney’s summary does not replace the underlying records.

For QME or AME matters, use the applicable workers’ compensation exchange procedures. Ordinary civil-retention practices should not be assumed to apply. See California’s rules on information provided to evaluators.

The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology support considering multiple information sources and explaining important limitations. Learn about personal-injury psychological evaluations.

2. Psychological IME, QME, or AME: which pathway applies?

These terms describe different evaluation contexts and selection procedures. They should not be treated as interchangeable website labels.

Independent psychological examination / IME

An independent examination addresses a defined third-party question. In a civil matter, counsel should clarify the applicable authority, agreed scope, recipients, records, examination arrangements, and requested report. The word “independent” does not promise an opinion favorable to the retaining party. Read about independent psychological evaluations.

Qualified medical evaluator / QME

In California workers’ compensation, a QME is certified by the Division of Workers’ Compensation to perform medical-legal evaluations. Panel selection follows the applicable process; contacting an evaluator’s website does not create a panel appointment.

Agreed medical evaluator / AME

In represented workers’ compensation matters, the parties may agree on a physician to address a medical dispute. An AME assignment and a panel QME assignment have different selection pathways. Counsel should establish which pathway applies before scheduling.

Use the DWC injured-worker FAQ and DWC QME resources for current official information. For administrative inquiries, visit Dr. Long’s psychology QME and AME page.

3. Emotional distress and functional impairment: what needs clarification?

An account of distress, a clinical diagnosis, and a description of functional limitations answer different questions. A useful referral identifies which questions are at issue and the time period that matters.

For example, “anxiety after an accident” leaves several matters unresolved: What changed? When did it change? How does the person function at work or at home? What was the prior baseline? Which records or observations support the account? What other circumstances may help explain the presentation?

Consider organizing the referral around three areas:

Symptoms and course: onset, duration, treatment, improvement, recurrence, and relevant history.
Function: specific activities, demands, limitations, accommodations, and changes over time.
Evidence and alternatives: records, collateral information, direct examination, appropriate testing, and competing explanations.

Assessment findings must be interpreted in context. A test score alone does not establish legal causation or a damages amount. Likewise, an inconsistency requires careful interpretation rather than an automatic conclusion about intentional deception.

The report should make its reasoning and limitations understandable. Counsel can help at the outset by identifying the legal question without prescribing the clinical conclusion. The APA forensic guidelines discuss adequate foundations for opinions and the use of appropriate assessment methods.

4. Competency to stand trial: define the current legal question

A competency referral concerns the defendant’s present ability to participate in the criminal process. It is not answered simply by identifying a diagnosis, and it is separate from a question about mental state at the time of an alleged offense.

California Rule of Court 4.131 addresses formal court-ordered competency evaluations under Penal Code section 1369(a). It calls for an examination, record review, and an analysis of current competency, including understanding the proceedings and rationally assisting counsel. It also specifies report contents and additional questions that may depend on the proceeding.

Before requesting an evaluation, counsel should identify the court order, the precise referral questions, the deadline, available records, and the proposed evaluator’s relevant training and experience. A general clinical CV should not be assumed to establish competency-evaluation experience.

Read the current California Rule of Court 4.131 and Rule 4.130 on competency proceedings. This educational overview does not represent a court-panel appointment or an offer of a specific criminal evaluation service.

5. SVP evaluations: verify specialty experience and the appointment pathway

Sexually violent predator (SVP) proceedings involve a specialized civil-commitment framework. A general psychological evaluation or a broad claim of forensic experience does not establish expertise for this assignment.

California’s Department of State Hospitals describes a specialized evaluation program and separately recruits contract SVP evaluators. State-program evaluation work and a privately retained consultation are distinct roles; counsel should identify the actual assignment and required qualifications.

Before retaining an evaluator, ask about:

Training and recent experience relevant to the specific SVP referral question.
The evaluator’s role and any required appointment or contract status.
Experience with the relevant record review, risk-assessment methods, reporting, and testimony.
Potential conflicts, access to records, examination arrangements, and realistic deadlines.

Consult the official DSH Sex Offender Commitment Program and DSH contract-evaluator information. This resource does not claim that Dr. Long holds a DSH SVP contract or offers SVP evaluations.

Discuss a referral

For personal-injury, civil, independent psychological evaluation, or workers’ compensation inquiries, review Dr. Long’s services and qualifications. Initial email should include business contact details, general matter type, jurisdiction, and deadline. Arrange confidential records separately.

Request an attorney consultation →

These resources provide general educational information. Counsel should verify current law, court orders, and local procedures for the particular matter.