• The changed landscape since 2012: from a primarily police psychology specialty with paper records and local practice to a broad public safety specialty encompassing corrections, military, aviation, fire/EMS, emergency communications, and national security, with electronic records, interstate and telehealth practice, heightened forensic expectations, and more sophisticated employment law
• Why the document required revision and how it was rebuilt, from a survey-derived consensus list of citations to a committee-curated resource with structured summaries, relevance-to-practice narratives, population contexts, and a searchable companion file (brief)
• The hierarchy of legal authority: how constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, case law, and professional standards each inform practice, and which controls when they conflict
• What the resource deliberately excludes (state law and other jurisdiction-specific authority) and why recognizing that boundary is itself a legal literacy skill
• Orientation to the revised document and the searchable companion resource: service categories, population contexts, and search strategy. The tool reappears throughout the workshop as the means of resolving each scenario.

•  Individualized assessment requirements and the limits of categorical disqualification

• Evaluator liability: the extension of professional duty and malpractice principles to preemployment evaluators

• Permissible inquiry under the ADA, the ADA Amendments Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: what may be asked, when, and of whom

• Discoverability of screening records and the evaluator’s documentation practices

• Tiered scenario: The Disqualified Candidate. In the threshold tier, a conditional-offer candidate discloses a family history of psychiatric illness during the evaluation. May the evaluator inquire further, and may the information inform the suitability determination? In the escalation tier, the agency requests the full evaluation report including the family history; the candidate is later screened out, requests his records, and retains counsel. Participants sequence the evaluator’s obligations under GINA’s acquisition and disclosure rules, ADA confidentiality provisions, and documentation and disclosure-scope standards, resolving the scenario with the companion resource.

•  The business necessity standard: what does and does not justify compelling an FFDE, including the insufficiency of unverified or anonymous allegations, the risk of retaliatory referral, and the application of the standard to categorical examination policies such as annual or automatic post-leave examinations
• The scope of disclosure: what the evaluator may report to the referring agency
• Evaluee access to assessment data and due process considerations
• The intersection of FFDE authority with FMLA return-to-work provisions, USERRA protections for returning service members, and compelled-statement doctrine
• Tiered scenario: The Returning Officer. In the threshold tier, an officer is referred for an FFDE after several angry confrontations with citizens. What authority governs whether the referral is lawful, and what is the permissible scope of the evaluation and report? In the escalation tier, the officer has recently returned from military deployment and FMLA leave, and during the evaluation he discloses conduct that could constitute a criminal offense. Participants sequence the evaluator’s obligations under the ADA’s business necessity and disclosure limits, FMLA and USERRA constraints on return-to-work examinations, and the compelled-statement protections of Garrity and its progeny, using the companion resource.

• Privilege and confidentiality: Jaffee, psychotherapy notes, and the distinction between treatment records and therapy notes under HIPAA
• The duty to protect and its variations: what Tarasoff does and does not require, and why the duty is jurisdiction-specific
• Employer demands for treatment information: what a treating psychologist may release, to whom, and on what authorization
• Military practice: the HIPAA military command exception, DoD notification instructions, and the military psychotherapist-patient privilege
• Tiered scenario: The Fighter Pilot. In the threshold tier, an Air Force pilot in confidential treatment for escalating panic attacks during flight asks the psychologist not to notify his commander. What are the psychologist’s confidentiality obligations, and how does military practice differ from civilian practice? In the escalation tier, the pilot’s condition deteriorates, command initiates an administrative action, and the government seeks the treatment records. Participants work through the military command exception, the applicable DoD instructions, and the scope and exceptions of the military privilege, using the companion resource.

• Constitutional standards for correctional mental health care: deliberate indifference, its objective and subjective components, and the difference between malpractice and a constitutional violation
• Involuntary treatment: the distinct legal frameworks governing medication for dangerousness and for competency restoration
•  Use-of-force analysis after recent Supreme Court precedent, and the consulting psychologist’s role in policy, training, and post-incident review
• Organizational consultation and municipal liability: failure-to-train and failure-to-screen theories
• Tiered scenario: The Suicidal Inmate. In the threshold tier, a correctional psychologist concludes that an inmate’s repeated suicide threats are manipulative and recommends no special precautions; the inmate dies by suicide that evening. What constitutional standard governs, and how does it differ from a negligence standard? In the escalation tier, the estate sues the psychologist, the facility, and the county. Participants analyze the deliberate indifference standard, individual and municipal liability theories, the role of professional judgment as a defense, and the expert testimony standards that will govern the litigation, using the companion resource.

• The resource as a board certification study tool: how candidates preparing for ABPPSP board certification can organize their preparation around the service categories and population contexts, use the abbreviated summaries as entry points to the primary authorities rather than substitutes for them, and self-test by working the workshop scenarios against the document
• The presenters’ fifteen: the fifteen authorities the presenters would rely on across a career spanning police, corrections, military, aviation, fire/EMS, emergency communications, and national security practice, offered as a study guide for candidates. Audience polls at the hardest calls, with presenter commentary on why each close call goes the way it does.
• The resource as a practice research tool: a demonstrated workflow for experienced specialists, from an incoming referral question, to filtering the companion file by service category and population context, to the abbreviated summary, to the primary authority, including how to recognize when a question falls outside the resource and requires jurisdiction-specific research or legal consultation
• Maintaining legal currency: how to monitor developments and how to use the resource as the law continues to evolve