Robert H Berger, M.D.

Malingering ("Forensic Psychiatry")
Bardey AS; Berger RH
1998 ;5(2):24,36,88-, Primary Psychiatry
— id: 64768, year: 1998, vol: 5, page: 24,36,88, stat: Journal Article,

Dangerousness ("Forensic Psychiatry")
Bardey AS; Berger RH
1997 ;4(10):14, 21-, Primary Psychiatry
— id: 64766, year: 1997, vol: 4, page: 14, 21, stat: Journal Article,

Informed consent ("Forensic Psychiatry")
Bardey AS; Berger RH
1997 July;4(7):21-21, Primary Psychiatry
— id: 64764, year: 1997, vol: 4, page: 21, stat: Journal Article,

Malpractice ("Forensic Psychiatry")
Bardey AS; Berger RH
1997 ;4(9):14, 21-, Primary Psychiatry
— id: 64765, year: 1997, vol: 4, page: 14, 21, stat: Journal Article,

Telemedicine and telepsychiatry ("Forensic Psychiatry")
Bardey AS; Berger RH
1997 Nov;4(11):14-16, Primary Psychiatry
— id: 64767, year: 1997, vol: 4, page: 14, stat: Journal Article,

Competency to stand trial: a conceptual model for its proper assessment
Drob SL; Berger RH; Weinstein HC
1987 ;15(1):85-94, Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law
The assessment of competency to stand trial is frequently fraught with conceptual confusion resulting from a failure to properly apply the data of the clinical examination to the relevant legal criteria. A basic question scheme that encompasses (1) the defendant's psychiatric status, (2) the effects of that status on his functioning, and (3) his apparent ability to participate in legal proceedings, is introduced to clarify the evaluation of fitness to stand trial. The way in which combinations of answers to three 'basic questions' generate a scheme that clarifies the difficulties encountered in most competency evaluations is shown. Eight paradigm cases are generated. Five of these (competence, incompetence, mentally ill but competent, malingering, and impaired but competent) are frequently straightforward. However, the three possibilities in which a defendant meets criteria entailed by two of the three questions are inherently subject to controversy. These situations (circumscribed psychosis related to the charges, malingering in the context of mental illness, and functional deficits in the context of minor mental illness) are discussed in detail and illustrated with case material
— id: 36556, year: 1987, vol: 15, page: 85, stat: Journal Article,

The determination of malingering: A comprehensive clinical-forensic approach
Drob, Sanford L; Berger, Robert H
1987 ;15(4):519-538, Journal of psychiatry & law
Describes a clinical model for the determination of malingering (feigning mental illness) in forensic-psychiatric contexts. The model establishes 3 criteria to help distinguish malingerers from uncooperative patients and those suffering from a factitious disorder: (1) ascertaining the presence of the classic signs and symptoms of feigned mental illness, (2) establishing a malingering motive, and (3) ruling out the presence of genuine psychopathology that would cause an individual to produce what appears to be voluntary symptomatology. Clinical application is described and illustrated with 4 case examples (aged 19-41 yrs) representing malingering, the uncooperative patient, factitious disorder, and malingering combined with factitious disorder.
— id: 64749, year: 1987, vol: 15, page: 519, stat: Journal Article,