Readers of my blog will remember that last fall I was honored to speak at the annual conference of the National Association of Neuropsychology (NAN).  During my presentation, I accurately indicated that Dr. Joe Reed had misinterpreted a court’s ruling in the case of Chapelle v. Ganger which dealt with Daubert challenges (admissibility) to various expert testimony.
 
Dr. Reed in a 1996 article wrote that in the Chapelle case, the trial judge ruled the fixed neuropsychological test battery met the Daubert standard while the flexible battery did not.This statement, as I correctly pointed out, was an error.
 
Therefore, I was interested to read a recent article published in the Clinical Neuropsychologist by Manfred F. Greiffenstein, Ph.D. entitled “Clinical Myths of Forensic Neuropsychology”. 
 
In his article, Dr. Greiffenstein discusses what he calls various myths surrounding forensic neuropsychology. While I disagree with the majority of this article, Dr. Greiffenstein correctly observed that one of those myths is that “only the fixed battery is admissible under Daubert.”  Dr. Greiffenstein attributes this myth to the article cited above by Reed.  Dr. Greiffenstein writes:
 
 “The assertion of the Halstead-Reitan battery’s superior admissibility is a myth for two reasons.  It is easily disproved by showing that Reed materially mischaracterized the Chapelle ruling....Second, fifteen years of Daubert jurisprudence have not been accompanied by any increase in Halstead-Reitan use or decline in flexible approaches.”
 
Thus, there is further evidence that Dr. Reed’s reading of the Chapelle decision is an error.  Whether this was simply an innocent misreading, a lack of understanding or a material “mischaracterization” as Dr. Greiffenstein charges is left to the reader.
 
What is clear is the assertion that Chapelle upheld the use of the fixed test battery and found that the flexible battery did not satisfy the Daubert standard simply is incorrect.