Tag: Emotional Distress

  • Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline 

    Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline 

    Plaintiff January Villareal claimed that during her December 16, 2021 arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, former San Jose Police Officer Matthew Dominguez inappropriately touched her as she sat handcuffed in the back of his patrol vehicle.

    Dominguez filed a motion to exclude one of the opinions offered by Villareal’s retained expert, Dr. Randall C. Epperson, a clinical neuropsychologist, regarding the cognitive decline Villareal claims she suffered as a result of the incident at issue while Villareal filed a motion to preclude all testimony and opinions of Defendants’ retained expert and forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Marc A. Cohen.

    Neuropsychology Expert Witness

    Randall C. Epperson, Ph.D. has received training in post-traumatic stress disorder and cognitive decline diagnosis and emotional harm related to sexual assault victims as a clinical and forensic neuropsychologist over the last 40 years.

    Epperson has testified as a neuropsychology expert in over a hundred state and federal cases regarding emotional harm, including post traumatic stress disorder and cognitive decline.

    Want to know more about the challenges Randall Epperson has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Psychiatry Expert Witness

    Marc Alan Cohen obtained a Master’s of Science degree in Physiological Science from the University of California, Los Angeles. He received an M.D. degree from the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in 2003. Cohen then completed a psychiatric residency training program at the University of California, Los Angeles-San Fernando Valley Psychiatry Residency Training Program, and thereafter completed a fellowship in forensic psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles. Cohen is board certified in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

    Discover more cases with Marc Cohen as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Randall Epperson

    Dominguez argued that Epperson did not have sufficient data to reliably opine that Villareal has “Neurocognitive Disorder, unspecified (reduction in cognitive efficiency due to emotional stress and depression)” and that she experienced cognitive decline as a result of the alleged incident with Dominguez.

    In his report, Epperson stated that Villareal’s “intellectual level has dropped from 112 (high average) to 90 (bottom of average range, 25%).” It appeared to be undisputed that Epperson did not have data regarding Villareal’s intellectual level prior the incident at issue.

    Villareal did not dispute that Epperson had no data or other information about Villareal’s intellectual level or her cognitive functioning before the incident. She argued, however, that Epperson’s opinion is admissible because he relied on the Wechsler Test of Premorbid Functioning and the Wonderlic Test in his analysis.

    Villareal acknowledged that Epperson’s assessments relied on indicators consisting of “the mean IQ of individuals with her education level (120) and work experience (113, 113, and 114)” as well as two assessment indicators—non-phonetically spelled English words (108) and English vocabulary (104)—that are “relatively resistant to deterioration.”

    From these indicators, Epperson concluded that Villareal’s pre-incident IQ was 112 and had dropped to 90 as a result of the incident.

    Epperson’s report disclosed the assessments he conducted and their results, but it included no explanation demonstrating that these one-time assessments of intellectual level may be used reliably to measure cognitive decline or to attribute the cause of any such decline to the incident in question. However, the Court will not preclude Epperson from testifying about his assessment that Villareal has “Neurocognitive Disorder, unspecified,” to the extent that testimony reflects his assessment of Villareal’s current cognitive functioning.

    Marc Cohen

    Villareal did not challenge Cohen’s qualifications. However, she argued that Cohen’s proposed testimony is unreliable because he did not personally examine her or conduct any formal testing. Additionally, Villareal argued that Cohen’s proposed testimony is unhelpful and improperly invaded the fact-finding province of the jury.

    Under the circumstances presented, the lack of a psychiatric examination of Villareal diminished the utility of Cohen’s testimony in helping the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue regarding, for example, the existence, causes, or sources of Villareal’s claimed emotional distress; the more “plausible” bases for Villareal’s PTSD diagnosis; the validity of her attribution of her symptoms to Dominguez’s alleged conduct; and the reliability of her memories of the events in question.

    Cohen’s report included commentary, opinions, and conclusions purporting to tell the jury the import and interpretation of, as well as inferences and conclusions to be drawn from, a timeline of events, Villareal’s medical records, other events or issues in Villareal’s life, Villareal’s statements and conduct, and other evidence of events as they unfolded. Such opinions intrude on the jury’s role in making credibility and other determinations of facts at issue. 

    While Cohen is permitted to opine that the events as alleged by Villareal, if true, could not result in PTSD, the Court held that Cohen will not be permitted to testify or offer opinions regarding the existence, causes, or sources of Villareal’s claimed emotional distress.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Dominguez’s motion to exclude a portion of Dr. Randall Epperson’s testimony.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Villareal’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Marc Cohen.

    Key Takeaway

    Cohen offered opinions and conclusions regarding evidence that jurors are capable of reviewing for themselves based on their own experience, without the aid of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. 

    There was no abuse of discretion in the determination that expert testimony would not aid the jury in evaluating evidence that was fully presented and within the understanding of the average juror.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Villareal V. City Of San Jose
    Docket Number: 5:22cv9152
    Court Name: United States District Court, California Northern
    Order Date: April 10, 2026
  • Economics Expert Witness Allowed to Opine on Educational Loss 

    Economics Expert Witness Allowed to Opine on Educational Loss 

    Plaintiffs Jennifer Le Pape (“Mother”) and Frederic Le Pape (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”), on behalf of their child, Alexandre Le Pape (“Alex”), and Alex, individually, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought intentional discrimination claims against Defendant Lower Merion School District (the “District”), alleging that the District failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with Alex were as effective as communications with others and failed to provide Alex with the appropriate auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford Alex an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefit of various school services and programming.

    Alex is a nonspeaker. He learned to communicate using a letterboard and communication support person (“letterboard”). The District precluded Alex from using a letterboard and communication partner at school.

    Plaintiffs filed a motion to preclude the opinions of Dr. Howard Shane, an anticipated expert witness for the District who will opine on the “effectiveness and appropriateness of using the method known as Spelling to Communicate (S2C) with Alex LePape.”

    In response, the District filed a motion to preclude the opinions of Chad Staller, an anticipated expert witness for Plaintiffs who will opine on the damages that Plaintiffs incurred for Alex’s past and future educational services and the future costs for Alex’s psychiatric treatment, and all evidence of educational loss.

    Speech-Language Pathology Expert Witness

    Howard Shane has been a practicing and licensed Speech Language Pathologist for 49 years. The vast majority of his professional life has been spent working with individuals who are non-speaking as a result of autism, cerebral palsy, or intellectual impairment. He holds a Master’s degree and a Doctoral degree in Speech Pathology with a minor in Developmental Psychology and Audiology. For his doctoral work, he specialized in neurogenic speech problems. Moreover, he completed a Doctoral Fellowship at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, where he worked with patients who experienced severe motor speech disorders, including Apraxia of Speech.

    Want to know more about the challenges Howard Shane has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Economics Expert Witness

    Chad L. Staller JD, MBA, MAC, CVA serves as the president of the Center for Forensic Economic Studies and holds extensive experience collaborating with both plaintiff and defense counsel across various civil cases. His expertise involves quantifying losses sustained by diverse plaintiff profiles, including union members, government employees, business proprietors, and injured children. Staller specializes in evaluating claims related to employment discrimination, encompassing calculations of back-pay, front-pay damages, and lost benefits. Additionally, he frequently provides consultation on commercial issues, analyzing claims associated with lost profits and business interruptions. Staller has a substantial record of testifying in jury trials, bench trials, and arbitrations within state and federal court settings.

    Get the full story on challenges to Chad Staller’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Chad Staller

    Motion to Preclude the Expert Testimony of Chad Staller and All Testimony and Evidence of Educational Loss

    The District contended that because it has been judicially determined that the District provided Alex with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and is not entitled to recover compensatory education or tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), Plaintiffs cannot recover educational loss damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the Rehabilitation Act, which renders Staller’s opinions as to those damages irrelevant under Rule 401 and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403

    Basically, evidence of educational loss is relevant to establish the specific compensatory damages that Plaintiffs seek. Accordingly, the Court denied the District’s motion with respect to evidence of Plaintiffs’ educational loss, including Staller’s opinions as to the amount of educational loss damages Plaintiffs incurred.

    Staller’s testimony on future medical care damages

    To begin with, the District argued that Plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery of emotional distress damages under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, which rendered Staller’s opinions as to those damages irrelevant under Rule 401 and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. 

    The Supreme Court held in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212, 142 S. Ct. 1562, 212 L. Ed. 2d 552 (2022), that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private discrimination actions brought under the Rehabilitation Act.

    The Court is not convinced by Plaintiffs’ argument that the non-educational loss damages that they seek—payment of Alex’s future psychiatric treatment expenses—are not emotional distress damages and, therefore, are still recoverable.

    The vast majority of district courts confronted with this issue in the wake of Cummings have held that mental health treatment costs constitute emotional distress damages because they stem from emotional distress as the underlying injury. 

    Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering Alex’s future psychiatric treatment expenses, as these fall into the category of emotional distress damages that are not recoverable under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

    The Court granted the District’s motion with respect to Staller’s opinions as to the projected cost of future psychiatric treatment for Alex.

    Howard Shane

    Plaintiffs argued that because Shane’s opinions are not based on any analysis of “Alex’s communication with a letter board and communication partner,” they are irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argued for the preclusion of Shane’s opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because these opinions “would invade the province of the jury, offering an opinion as to the credibility of [Alex’s] testimony with the letter board.”

    The Court held that Shane’s opinions are relevant to the material factual issues of the efficacy of a letterboard and communication partner for Alex, the efficacy of other communication supports that the District provided to Alex, and the District’s knowledge when it refused to permit Alex to use S2C at school at least in part due to the perceived lack of supporting scientific research.

    Moreover, Plaintiffs’ contention that Shane did not base his opinions on any “personal interactions” with Alex or investigations of “authorship with Alex’s use of the letter board” is not entirely accurate, as Shane indicates in his affirmative report that he compared the “content of [Alex’s] work produced independently with [his] work produced with the assistance of a facilitator.”

    Also, considering that Plaintiffs will offer their own expert opinions as to the efficacy of Alex’s use of S2C as a means of communication and the significance of a communication partner for Alex, the Court found that Plaintiffs will not be unfairly prejudiced, and the jury will not be confused or misled, by the introduction of Shane’s contrasting opinions.

    However, the Court precluded Shane’s opinions to the extent they relate to human rights violations, including violations of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, because such opinions are impermissible legal conclusions and unfairly prejudicial and confusing to the jury. 

    Held

    1. The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to preclude opinions of Howard Shane.
    2. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Chad Staller.

    Key Takeaway:

    • The Court did not find that the probative value of Shane’s opinions is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice because the Plaintiffs will offer their own expert opinions as to the efficacy of Alex’s use of S2C as a means of communication and the significance of a communication partner for Alex.
    • Also, Staller’s opinions as to the amount of educational loss damages Plaintiffs incurred is relevant to establish the specific compensatory damages that Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to recover for their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: J.L. Et Al V. Lower Merion School District
    Docket Number: 2:20cv1416
    Court: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
    Order Date: December 30, 2024