Substantial is the operative word, and it is a question about severity and duration rather than about whether something happened. The evaluation measures the harm and ties it to the qualifying activity.
The certification establishes the crime. The evaluation establishes the harm.
Those are two different evidentiary jobs, and only one of them is clinical.
Severity, duration and the connection between the two. Each is documented rather than asserted.
The psychological response, its onset relative to the events, and how it has developed since.
Where symptoms fall relative to published norms, which is what makes substantial a measurable claim rather than an adjective.
Harm that has continued is materially different from harm that resolved, and the record should show which.
Work, sleep, parenting and relationships. Function is often the clearest evidence of severity.
The connection between the qualifying activity and the harm, stated with its reasoning and its limits.
Tested and reported directly, so severity is not left open to the obvious challenge.
Chosen against the referral question, administered and scored by the evaluator, and reported with what each measure was selected to answer.
Response validity can be especially important in forensic and immigration evaluations. Where severity is the question being asked, it gives the comparison against norms something to rest on.
The report is written for the certification package, so it addresses severity and nexus in terms counsel can point to directly.
business days is the general timeline from the completed evaluation to the delivered report. An expedited timeline may be possible when a deadline is close.
The pre-referral conversation costs nothing. If an evaluation is not indicated for the case, you should hear that first.
