Toxic torts are increasing across the country and often the results of the neuropsychological evaluation are crucial for defining damages. Therefore, the accurate differentiation of those damaged by toxic exposure from those exaggerating or fabricating deficits is important. However, there is little research on malingering in this context. Presented are four patients claiming cognitive deficits after apparent occupational neurotoxic exposure who were diagnosed as malingering using the Slick, Sherman, and Iverson criteria. The goals of this article were to (1) illustrate the application of the Slick Criteria; (2) discuss current knowledge about the neurological and neurocognitive effects of toxic substances and its impact on clinical decision-making; (3) discuss the application of the Slick Criteria, specifically, and malingering research, generally, to toxic exposure cases; and (4) propose a paradigm in which medical, toxicological and neuropsychology professionals coordinately evaluate cases of alleged neurotoxic chemical exposure.