A Discussion Summary of the First Dispute Systems Design Conference

Conclusion A dominant theme throughout the conference was how best to relate existing, traditional dispute systems (e. g., the courts, grievance panels, etc.) to the methods generally advocated by dispute systems designers (e. g., negotiation, mediation, etc.). Exploring that relationship is one of many dispute system design issues worthy of further discussion by practitioners and scholars.In sum, the conference discussion strongly indicates that there is a common set of dispute systems design issues across several contexts. Practitioners were clearly able to build on each other's insights and to learn from one another's practices, even when the settings for these practices diverged widely. An approach that focuses on these common dispute systems design issues appears to be a powerful method of developing individual practitioners and of developing the practical knowledge base of the profession as a whole. Based on this observation, the answer to the question in the title of this article is yes. Tony Simons is a doctoral student at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management of Northwestern University, 3-191 Leverone Hall, Evanston, Ill. 60208.     

Issue definition: the neglected foundation of effective issue management

Many issue management models proceed from issue scanning and identification directly to determining an objective, with insufficient attention to the important element of formally defining the issue. Proper definition is a vital foundation for effective issue management, and comprises a sound understanding of the issue itself, choosing exactly the right words to best position the issue and securing agreement on the definition. It also requires a full appreciation of the techniques used by other parties to try to redefine the issue to their competing agenda, and this paper identifies and categorises three such techniques. Copyright © 2004 Henry Stewart Publications     

Psycholegal Assessment of Co-occurring Chronic Pain and Schizophrenia Post-MVC: Analysis of Causation Using Two Case Examples

The key aspect of any psycholegal assessment is the analysis of causation, which requires consideration of important legal constructs such as the but for test, material contribution test, thin skull, and crumbling skull. An analysis of causation can be especially helpful in determining overall liability when evaluating the impact of two major co-occurring conditions. This paper focuses on the utility of conducting an analysis of causation using two case examples in which chronic pain and schizophrenia co-occurred following a motor vehicle collision (MVC). Collision-related injuries often lead to the development of chronic pain and could result in permanent and serious impairment and disability. Schizophrenia is a rare psychological occurrence in the collision context and is associated with its own unique and overwhelming physical, psychological, and cognitive challenges. In the psycholegal context, evaluating the impact of two major co-occurring conditions can be problematic and lead to conceptual challenges. In the two cases presented, some assessors attributed nearly all post-collision changes to schizophrenia as if it were pre-existing or in a latent state and failed to assess or even consider the contribution of MVC-related sequelae to the onset of schizophrenia. As part of addressing these conceptual challenges, we present a model of psycholegal assessment that takes into account the pre-, peri- and post-MVC variables that best explain the occurrence of these two conditions. The model also allows the assessor to determine the current and future needs of injured persons, the permanent physical, psychological, and cognitive sequelae that impact quality of life and/or work, and prognosis for the near and distant future.