TRAUMATIC neuroses have long been a troublesome medical and forensic problem. When the matter of financial compensation (gain) is involved, the question immediately arises: Are we dealing with a compensation neurosis? Is there a difference between a traumatic neurosis and a compensation neurosis? If so, what is that difference? In other words, when a person exhibits a set of functional nervous symptoms after an accidental injury and the person responsible for the injury has a financial obligation to the victim of the accident, how can one assess the respective roles played by emotional trauma per se, on the one hand, and by the unconscious desire for financial remuneration, on the other? In order not to confuse the issues involved in this question, I shall eliminate from this discussion any consideration of malingering, i. e., conscious simulation of symptoms for the sole purpose of gaining financial or other forms of profit.
KAMMAN GR, PAUL S. TRAUMATIC NEUROSIS, COMPENSATION NEUROSIS OR ATTITUDINAL PATHOSIS? AMA Arch NeurPsych. 1951;65(5):593–603. doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1951.02320050050006
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.