- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by stefano
- Jun 04, 2012, 09:45 AMI would think that not following established polygraph techniques would be grounds for malpractice.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 03, 2012, 08:15 PMFurther to my post, had I ever been prevented from obtaining a job because of the poly, I would have been the first to test it in the courts. You never know about these things until you get your case before a judge or a jury. I have advised many times to failed subjects to file a lawsuit. I have been sued two times and filed one in the mining realm and won all three. As I say, you never know.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 03, 2012, 08:04 PMstefano
I think a medical malpractice suit would be much easier to win. Polygraphers has many more defence options. They would probably start with "based on the results of the machine, it is my opinion........." then go from there. I think it would be very difficult to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, because of the nature of the beast.
I think a medical malpractice suit would be much easier to win. Polygraphers has many more defence options. They would probably start with "based on the results of the machine, it is my opinion........." then go from there. I think it would be very difficult to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, because of the nature of the beast.
Posted by stefano
- Jun 03, 2012, 12:34 PMTwoblock,
I was thinking more of going after the polygrapher himself for malpractice, not even involving the agency. Some will chime in and say that he is the agency because he's employed by them.
I'm not so sure. I think one can sue a doctor for malpractice whether the incompetence occurred in a hospital or his private office. Also, if an agency is forced to dedicate legal resources to defend their polygrapher against numerous lawsuits, it would at the very least, bring tremendous political pressure to bear.
I was thinking more of going after the polygrapher himself for malpractice, not even involving the agency. Some will chime in and say that he is the agency because he's employed by them.
I'm not so sure. I think one can sue a doctor for malpractice whether the incompetence occurred in a hospital or his private office. Also, if an agency is forced to dedicate legal resources to defend their polygrapher against numerous lawsuits, it would at the very least, bring tremendous political pressure to bear.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 03, 2012, 05:36 AMstefano
I don't if this what you're talking about, but attorney Zaid filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of some failed polygraph subjects and lost. That suit was covered pretty well on this site. Therefore, federal applicants has no recoarse but to tuck tail and go. I don't know about other situations.
I don't if this what you're talking about, but attorney Zaid filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of some failed polygraph subjects and lost. That suit was covered pretty well on this site. Therefore, federal applicants has no recoarse but to tuck tail and go. I don't know about other situations.
Posted by stefano
- Jun 02, 2012, 12:55 PMWell executed joke, sounds like something I would say 8-)....you must knock em dead at the donut shop! So polygraphers buy malpractice insurance, but have no clue as to why? I'm sure these companies will not pay out under all circumstances. There surely has to be a line that cannot be crossed. I'm curious to know what it is.
A cursory look at the Complete Equity Markets Inc. website revealed:
"Professional Liability Coverage
Coverage for damages resulting from negligent acts, errors or omissions on the part of the Insured in professional services rendered or which should have been rendered in the Insured's professional capacity as a polygraphist."
The application is attached for the curious. Seem as if polygraphers can be sued. Does anyone know if any rejected applicants have ever gone down this road?
A cursory look at the Complete Equity Markets Inc. website revealed:
"Professional Liability Coverage
Coverage for damages resulting from negligent acts, errors or omissions on the part of the Insured in professional services rendered or which should have been rendered in the Insured's professional capacity as a polygraphist."
The application is attached for the curious. Seem as if polygraphers can be sued. Does anyone know if any rejected applicants have ever gone down this road?
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 02, 2012, 09:33 AMQuote from: stefano on Jun 01, 2012, 09:50 PMWhat does it take? Does he have to bend you over the table?
I don't know, I am not an attorney, steffy. Is that a real question or just wishful thinking on your part?
Posted by stefano
- Jun 01, 2012, 09:50 PMSo what constitutes polygraph malpractice?
Failure to follow APA guidelines?
Failure to follow accepted polygraph procedures?
Not properly scoring charts?
Poorly formulated questions?
Falsely accusing someone of countermeasures?
What does it take? Does he have to bend you over the table?
Failure to follow APA guidelines?
Failure to follow accepted polygraph procedures?
Not properly scoring charts?
Poorly formulated questions?
Falsely accusing someone of countermeasures?
What does it take? Does he have to bend you over the table?
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 01, 2012, 05:35 PMTwoblock
Under EPPA employees can not waive any of their rights by contract or otherwise. No matter what they sign they are protected. In some states release of liability forms are allowed in some states prohibited. I personally have never used one.
Under EPPA employees can not waive any of their rights by contract or otherwise. No matter what they sign they are protected. In some states release of liability forms are allowed in some states prohibited. I personally have never used one.
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 01, 2012, 05:26 PMgetrealalready
I can only speak for myself, not for our government or agencies. As a private examiner, I a/v record if requested. I have some clients or client's attorneys who will not allow recording of any type. This thread is after all infidelity poly, and I think we can all see why some couples would be uncomfortable.
Some states require all internal affairs interviews of LEA personnel be recorded and APA guidelines require recording of evidentiary exams. Under EPPA both employer and employee have the right with each others knowledge to record everything.
I receive very few requests for audio/video recording, but with the computerized systems it is a simple matter.
I can only speak for myself, not for our government or agencies. As a private examiner, I a/v record if requested. I have some clients or client's attorneys who will not allow recording of any type. This thread is after all infidelity poly, and I think we can all see why some couples would be uncomfortable.
Some states require all internal affairs interviews of LEA personnel be recorded and APA guidelines require recording of evidentiary exams. Under EPPA both employer and employee have the right with each others knowledge to record everything.
I receive very few requests for audio/video recording, but with the computerized systems it is a simple matter.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jun 01, 2012, 05:18 PMpailryder
Arn't polygraph subjects required to sign a piece of paper that obsolves the polygrapher of all liabilities due to the test results?
Arn't polygraph subjects required to sign a piece of paper that obsolves the polygrapher of all liabilities due to the test results?
Posted by getrealalready
- Jun 01, 2012, 07:54 AMpailryder,
Your thoughts? Should any polygrapher (and his/her agency/department) who does not audio/video tape a routine polygraph exam be subject to a malpractice suit? As best I can tell, most (certainly all applicant exams) ARE routine and given in normal places of business (polygraph suites) There seems to be no excuse whatsoever for not doing so.
Your thoughts? Should any polygrapher (and his/her agency/department) who does not audio/video tape a routine polygraph exam be subject to a malpractice suit? As best I can tell, most (certainly all applicant exams) ARE routine and given in normal places of business (polygraph suites) There seems to be no excuse whatsoever for not doing so.
Posted by stefano
- May 31, 2012, 06:23 PMhmmm, so all of these rejected candidates can sue for malpractice if the polygrapher did not follow APA guidelines or adhere to the polygraph technique?
Posted by pailryder
- May 31, 2012, 05:30 PMgetrealalready
We are routinely subjected to malpractice suits, and in some states, required to provide proof of insurance coverage for licensing.
We are routinely subjected to malpractice suits, and in some states, required to provide proof of insurance coverage for licensing.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 31, 2012, 04:43 PMQuote from: pailryder on May 31, 2012, 07:32 AMThen you should never go to a doctor, because every medical tests has the potential for a false positive/negative result.I should have been clearer, I suppose. While it is true that most medical tests carry some chance of a false negative or a false positive, the ones considered "accurate" (such as the throat culture or the Pap smear) have a statistically insignificant chance of false results.
The same cannot be said of the polygraph, even, I think, by its supporters.