[An attempt at developing coherent recommendations for jurisdiction in the case of psychoorganic syndrome in which intellectual deficit is revealed].

Traditionally, we distinguish three forms of psychoorganic syndrome: 1) oligophrenic, 2) characteropathic, and 3) dementive. According to ICD-10 classification, these disorders should be defined by more modern terms: 1) mental impairment (F7x), 2) personality disorders and behaviors caused by brain injury or brain malfunction (F07), and 3) various forms of dementia (from F00 to F04), respectively. To assess the level of intellectual aptitude, i.e., to confirm the existence of possible intellectual deficits, we can use various neuro-psychological instruments. The most important instrument here is the Wechsler scale, whose results allow for distinguishing six intellectual levels below mental norms. To assess the judicial importance of particular intellectual deficits, the experts should refer to the former Government Ordinance on the rights to earlier retirement benefits of employees having children who require constant care, of May 15, 1989. According to the above mentioned Ordinance, it is only at least moderate mental impairment that may be the sole basis for deciding about the former second disability group (now: complete inability to work). In the case of slight impairment - such a decision may be issued only if the impairment occurs together with other serious disorders severely impairing organism functioning. In other words, slight mental impairment can justify the certification of mere partial inability to work. Following this line of thought, we must say that lesser intellectual deficits, such as borderline cases or intelligence below average, should not be formally the premises of judicial value. It seems sensible to issue similar guidelines also in the case of dementive syndromes, that is, secondary intellectual deficits occurring at mature or old age.