Plaintiff Brigid “Bridie” Farrell alleged that Defendant Gabel groomed and sexually abused her from June 1997 to January 1998, when she was 15 and Gabel was 33. Plaintiff was a competitive short-track speedskater in the 1990s and 2000s.
Defendant United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”) filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Paul Ballas, pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Psychiatry Expert Witness
Dr. Paul A. Ballas is a trained psychiatrist with board certifications in child, adolescent, and adult psychiatry.
Ballas completed an internship, psychiatry residency and child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Ballas has treated over 1,000 children and adults with
psychiatric and mental illness related to sexual abuse.
Discussion by the Court
Specifically, USOPC requested that the Court exclude Ballas from testifying about the following:
(1) his causation opinions, namely, that “Farrell experienced the onset of severe psychiatric symptoms following the sexual abuse that occurred from 1997-1998” and that “Farrell developed a depressive disorder in addition to PTSD as a consequence of the serious trauma inflicted upon her by Andy Gable [sic] from 1997-1998.”
(2) his vocational functioning opinions, namely, that “the sexual and emotional abuse that occurred from 1997-1998 had an impact on Plaintiff’s future ability to function in her employment capacity.”
(3) his opinions regarding Plaintiff’s past and future medical costs attributable to the alleged abuse.
A. Defendant USOPC’s motion to exclude parts of Paul Ballas’ expert testimony
(a) Causation opinion
Ballas opined that Plaintiff developed psychiatric symptoms because of Defendant Gabel’s alleged abuse. USOPC took issue with this causation opinion, arguing that, “given the lack of any evidence or data suggesting that Plaintiff’s psychiatric symptoms developed immediately after her alleged abuse by Defendant Gabel, Ballas’ opinion that there was a clear demarcation of symptoms before and after the alleged abuse — and thus that the alleged abuse caused Farrell’s psychiatric symptoms and conditions — is speculative and should be excluded.”
However, the Court found that, even if this was a flaw in Ballas’ reasoning or methodology, this flaw is not “‘large enough that Ballas lacks good grounds for his conclusions.’”
Moreover, the Court concluded that Ballas’ opinion that, because of a traumatic experience as a child, Plaintiff later in life developed psychiatric conditions that did not exist prior to the traumatic experience is not the type of testimony which “is speculative or conjectural.”
USOPC also criticized the reliability of Ballas’ report by arguing that his “failure to consider and rule out other likely causes of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries constitutes an independent and additional reason to exclude his causation opinions.”
However, Ballas did acknowledge other traumas in his report. Ballas explained that, although other traumatic incidents have occurred, the abuse by Defendant Gabel was the first, making it the “index event” in causing Plaintiff’s trauma.
Ballas also reviewed Farrell’s medical records and medical history, along with the medical records of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Eleni Maloutas. USOPC took issue with the Ballas’ report to the extent that Ballas relied on Maloutas’ conclusions. However, an expert’s reliance on a Plaintiff’s treatment record will not bar this expert’s testimony from being admitted.
The Court concluded that the methodology that Ballas used to reach his conclusions about the cause of Plaintiff’s psychological injuries is reasonable.
(b) Ballas’ opinion regarding Plaintiff’s vocational capacity
Ballas opined that Plaintiff’s “ongoing symptoms are clearly affecting her relationships and vocational functioning.”
Ballas opined that, “in his opinion, the sexual and emotional abuse that occurred from 1997-1998 had an impact on Plaintiff’s future ability to function in her employment capacity, since her PTSD, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were directly related to this abuse.”
Ballas, a trained psychiatrist, opined that the severe psychological symptoms Plaintiff is experiencing impacted her ability to function in her career. This application of Ballas’ training and experience does not contain a “flaw in his reasoning or methodology that is large enough that he lacks good ground for his conclusions.”
Accordingly, the Court found that Ballas’ opinion regarding Plaintiff’s vocational capacity is reliable.
(c) Ballas’ medical cost opinions
USOPC contended that, although Ballas purportedly calculated Plaintiff’s medical costs stemming from the alleged abuse, his methods for calculating those costs are unreliable and should not be considered.
With regard to the issue of past medical costs, Ballas estimates that “the financial cost of Plaintiff’s therapy and psychiatric visits since 2014 was approximately $40,000.”
In this case, Ballas’ estimate of past medical expenses is not reliable. Plaintiff’s past expenses stemming from the alleged abuse can be calculated with specificity based on her actual treatment records. There is no need for an expert to estimate what those costs were. Furthermore, Ballas’ estimate of past treatment costs is unreliable because it includes costs that Plaintiff never incurred because, during certain periods, she received no treatment and, thus did not incur any costs. Therefore, the Court found that Ballas may not testify about Plaintiff’s past medical costs because any such testimony would be neither reliable nor necessary.
With regard to future medical expenses, Ballas opined that Plaintiff will require mental health treatment “for at least an additional 40 years.” In this case, Ballas has not provided any information that suggests that he is qualified to testify about an individual’s life expectancy or that he has any actuarial experience. Therefore, the Court found that Ballas lacked the base level qualifications that Rule 702 requires to opine on Plaintiff’s life expectancy.
Furthermore, the Court found that Ballas is qualified to testify regarding his opinion on Plaintiff’s yearly medical costs. The Court also found that Ballas’ opinion regarding Plaintiff’s future medical costs is relevant because it will assist the trier of fact in calculating any damages to which it concludes Plaintiff is entitled.
B. Defendant USOPC’s motion to strike Ballas’ May 30, 2024 Declaration
USOPC contended that the declaration of Ballas that Plaintiff filed in support of her opposition to its motion to exclude Ballas’ testimony contains new opinions asserted after the close of discovery and contains improper legal arguments.
The Court has reviewed the information contained in Ballas’ May 30, 2024 declaration and finds that it is related to the initial Ballas report. For example, in this declaration, Ballas reaffirms much of what he has already stated or is responding to USOPC’s criticisms of his report.
Furthermore, the Court found that USOPC’s argument that Ballas is making improper legal arguments in his May 30, 2024 declaration is without merit. In all the paragraphs that USOPC cited as alleging impermissible legal arguments, no such arguments are made. Rather, Ballas is permissibly responding to the criticisms of his expert report that USOPC made in its motion to exclude those reports.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant USOPC’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Paul Ballas.
Key Takeaway
When determining whether to admit expert testimony, a court must consider the qualifications of an expert to testify as to a particular matter. Ballas has not provided any information that suggests that he is qualified to testify about an individual’s life expectancy.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Psychiatry Expert Allowed to Opine on Psychological Injuries
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Farrell V. The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv1178 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, New York Northern |
| Order Date: | June 22, 2026 |
Leave a Reply