Book Review

Reviewing Howard L. Oleck, A Singular Fury, World Publishing Co., 196

Book Review

Reviewing Howard L. Oleck, A Singular Fury, World Publishing Co., 196

The Terror Neurosis

In 1934, Strauss and Savitzky wrote a paper\u27 in which they elaborated a particular syndrome known as a terror neuro- sis, and stated that it was frequently found in such natural disasters as earthquakes, or in sea or military disasters, and mining catastrophes. Physical injuries in these cases, they said, may be slight or absent. For this reason, Strauss and Savitzky objected to the use of the term traumatic neurosis on the ground that the neurosis had no physical cause as such

Sovereign Immunity - An Argument Con

Under the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, a state may not be sued in tort without its consent. This doctrine, though the subject of repeated judicial challenges, is adhered to in a significant number of jurisdictions. It is the contention of this article that the reason for the rule no longer exists and that it should, therefore, be abolished as a controlling legal principle. Moreover, it is submitted that sovereign immunity violates the due process and equal protection

The Frightened Medical Witness; or Globus Hystericus Must Go

This article is written on behalf of the many trauma patients and their trial attorneys who discover to their horror, that their important medical witness - the attending doctor, - suffers from Globus Hystericus . It is hoped that this paper may prove to be the elusive Rx to cure some difficulties raised by those few physicians (and yet there are too many) who hide their fear of the witness chair behind lame excuses, or even behind flat refusals to testify

Subjective Complaints v. Objective Signs

The word versus in the title presents what we think is one of the most important problems of plaintiff trial lawyers today. After years of preparation, we submit our case to a jury; our medical witnesses offer testimony based on long time observation, treatment and evaluation. Then, in walks the defendant\u27s doctor and proceeds to plunge a dagger into our case by calling our client either a malingerer or a neurotic, or just a plain liar. He testifies that he saw none of the objective signs that our medical examiners found, and concludes that all of the subjective complaints are imaginary or faked. Call it by any other name, it is murder in the courtroom. Your case may expire under the knife of this witness, right then and there