Plaintiff Brigid “Bridie” Farrell alleged that Defendant Gabel groomed and sexually abused her from June 1997 to January 1998.
Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Defendants’ expert, Dr. Charles Saldanha, pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Psychiatry Expert Witness
Charles Edwin Saldanha graduated from Emory University with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and completed his Doctor of Medicine degree at the Duke University School of Medicine. After internship at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, he completed residency in Psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and a fellowship in Forensic Psychiatry at Yale University. He is certified in Psychiatry with Added Qualifications in Forensic Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.
Saldanha has practiced in the areas of emergency psychiatry, inpatient psychiatry, and community psychiatry with a focus on persons with serious mental illness.
Saldanha has performed over 60 forensic psychiatric evaluations and has testified over 25 times in court proceedings and depositions.
Discussion by the Court
1. Qualifications
Plaintiff is an adult who alleged that she suffered from psychiatric conditions due to sexual abuse she suffered as a teenager. She argued that Saldanha is not qualified as an expert “due to his lack of experience in child psychiatry.”
Saldanha, however, has “superior knowledge, education, experience, or skill” in general and forensic psychiatry. Saldanha describes his work experience to “include clinical work with diverse behavioral health populations spanning a range of ages, primary diagnoses, comorbidities, and psychosocial backgrounds, including persons who have suffered sexual assault and abuse.”
Accordingly, the Court concluded that, based on Saldanha’s education, experience and skill, he qualifies as an expert to give his opinion on Plaintiff’s emotional injuries as a result of the sexual and mental abuse.
2. Reliability
Saldanha opined that, “though Plaintiff’s records indicate that some treaters have also diagnosed PTSD or listed it as a rule out diagnosis, the information available does not support this diagnosis.” To arrive at this conclusion, Saldanha reasoned that, “since the abuse, Plaintiff has not shown a consistent presence of avoidance of stimuli associated with the abuse or marked alterations in arousal and reactivity, domains of symptoms which are present in PTSD.” Saldanha noted that, “since this episode of abuse, Plaintiff has not shown persistent avoidance of or efforts to avoid memories, thoughts, or feelings related to the events or people, places, activities, or situations related to the abuse.” Saldanha further asserted that, although “psychological testing performed as part of the evaluation showed significant emotional distress, it did not support the diagnosis of PTSD.”
The Court concluded that, by outlining the symptoms that he looks for when identifying cases of PTSD and explaining why, in his opinion, Plaintiff is not experiencing these symptoms, Saldanha adequately explained the methodology he used to reach his conclusion.
Saldanha explained that, in his opinion, the symptoms Plaintiff described were more consistent with major depressive disorder than with PTSD. Saldanha clearly articulated that, because Plaintiff was not exhibiting avoidance of stimuli or changes in reactivity, he did not believe that a PTSD diagnosis was appropriate.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s contention that Saldanha is merely acting as an “advocate for a cause” and that, therefore, the Court should exclude his testimony as unreliable, is unavailing. To the contrary, in his report, Saldanha acknowledged that Plaintiff is experiencing psychological issues such as major depressive disorder.
3. Relevance
In this case, whether Plaintiff suffered psychological injury as a result of Defendant Gabel’s alleged abuse is a critical issue in this case. Saldanha’s expert opinion is directly relevant to both the psychological issues from which Plaintiff suffers and the cause of those problems.
Accordingly, the Court found that Saldanha’s expert testimony is relevant to the issues in this case.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Charles Saldanha.
Key Takeaway
The Court noted that, in assessing reliability, the principles and methodology employed should be assessed, not the outcome of those methods. Moreover, it is not unusual for reasonable minds to differ even when both apply reliable methodology in reaching such differing conclusions. For all these reasons, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s displeasure with Saldanha’s conclusion is not a ground for excluding him from testifying.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Farrell V. The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv1178 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Order Date: | June 17, 2026 |
Leave a Reply