Why the DSM-5 and ICD-10 Matter in Personal Injury Claims

In personal injury cases involving psychological harm, the question is not whether emotional suffering exists but whether it can be shown with enough clarity to justify compensation. The DSM-5 and ICD-10 are sometimes criticized for being medicalized checklists or for changing too often. From the perspective of psychological injury, their evolving standards are what give courts and clinicians a shared way to separate ordinary distress from clinical injury.

A Shared Language for personal injury

Institutions can often struggle to communicate about mental health due to their varied definitions and compensation schedules. Lay descriptions like “anxiety,” “stress,” or “depression” can mean very different things in everyday speech than in clinical practice. The DSM and ICD provide a common framework. When a psychologist testifies that a plaintiff meets criteria for PTSD or Major Depressive Disorder, that diagnosis carries a set of agreed-upon criteria. This reduces ambiguity and ensures all parties are referencing the same construct.

In the adversarial context of litigation, credibility is everything. Diagnoses come with operationalized criteria, minimum duration thresholds, and requirements for functional impairment. That structure allows courts to identify which injuries are significant enough to warrant compensation.

Objectivity and Evolving Science

The DSM and ICD connect directly to standardized tools like the CAPS-5 for PTSD, the PHQ-9 for depression, or the GAD-7 for anxiety. These measures translate symptoms into data points: frequency, severity, duration. They also integrate with validity tests to help detect exaggeration or inconsistent reporting. Together, these tools bring an element of objectivity to an often invisible mental injury.

Critics often point to how categories have changed. Homosexuality was once pathologized, grief criteria have shifted, and PTSD was a later addition. But the evolution of psychological diagnostic procedures is a feature of the science, not a flaw. The legal system benefits when diagnostic standards adjust to reflect better both science and lived realities. A system frozen in time would risk cementing outdated constructs. Our living framework allows courts to rely on the most current consensus.