A San Diego law professor, Grant Morris, recently spoke at Pittsburgh presenting the results of his poll of 273 psychiatrists and psychologists across the country who had participated in clinical vignettes involving fact patterns of persons who might or might not be competent. He concluded from the poll that examiners in general do not attend to the legal issues and confuse mental illness and lack of competency.<BR><BR>I am curious about our performance in Texas, and while Vernon State Hospital folk will soon proffer an article on this subject, I wonder, so...<BR>Thinking back over that past 2-3 competency evaluations you have seen, (regardless of who was the movant) to what extent did the examiner comply with the detailed requirements of 46B in constructing the report? <BR><BR>Here are three possible responses from not at all to full compliance.Not at all - the report was brief and conclusoryTo some extent, the report addressed the rational knowledge prongThe report fully addressed all the guidelines, including the adjudicative competence guidelines.