Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Psychiatric

  • Psychiatry Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Life Expectancy

    Psychiatry Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Life Expectancy

    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.

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

    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
  • Psychiatry Experts’ Opinions on Causation and Permanency Admitted

    Psychiatry Experts’ Opinions on Causation and Permanency Admitted

    This action arises from the pled sexual assault of Plaintiff Margaret Betts by a massage therapist during an in-room massage appointment at Sixty LES, a hotel owned and managed by Defendants Sixty Lower East Side, LLC, Sixty Hotels, LLC, and Sixty Hotel Manager, LLC.

    Plaintiff has proffered two expert witnesses, Dr. Steven A. Fayer and Dr. Joseph Otonichar, to testify at trial that the Plaintiff’s assault resulted in lasting psychological injuries, including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Defendants, meanwhile, have proposed to offer one expert witness, Dr. Julie C. Medlin, to testify at trial that the Plaintiff’s assault did not significantly impact her pre-existing psychological symptoms.

    The parties have each filed motions in limine seeking to preclude the opposing party’s proposed expert witnesses from testifying at trial.

    Psychiatry Expert Witnesses

    Dr. Steven Alan Fayer is an associate professor of psychiatry at The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital and an attending physician at The Mount Sinai Hospital. He received his M.D. from Georgetown School of Medicine and completed his residency in psychiatry at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. He is certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. 

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

    Dr. Joseph Otonichar is a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, the medical director of Mental Health at NYC-HHC Correctional Health Services, and a co-partner at Gotham Forensics. He received a master’s degree in biology from Cleveland State University, and he subsequently received his D.O. from Midwestern University — Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine. He is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in forensic psychiatry and is a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in Psychiatry.

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

    Psychology Expert Witness

    Dr. Julie Christine Medlin is a licensed psychologist and the Director of the Medlin Treatment Center in Marietta, Georgia. She obtained her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Harvard University, and her master’s and doctoral degrees in clinical psychology from the University of Florida. Medlin specializes in assessments and conducts psychological, sexual trauma, psychosexual, and forensic evaluations. 

    Discover more cases with Julie C. Medlin as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Medlin

    Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Medlin’s testimony on the grounds that she: (i) lacked the qualifications to serve as an expert in this case; (ii) is not licensed to practice psychology in New York; and (iii) employed tests and techniques in her examination that were not subject to peer review and have not gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

    Julie C. Medlin

    To begin with, Medlin’s curriculum vitae stated that she founded a private, outpatient counseling center more than twenty-five years ago to offer “specialized evaluation and treatment for sexual and physical trauma victims” and conduct “forensic and clinical evaluations of alleged or confirmed sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, including in criminal and civil cases.” The Court found that such work experience is directly relevant to the issues in this action.

    Moreover, Medlin’s curriculum vitae stated that she is licensed with PSYPACT, an interstate organization that allows licensed psychologists to practice telepsychology and conduct temporary, in-person sessions across state boundaries. Medlin conducted her evaluation of Plaintiff in New Jersey, which is a participant in PSYPACT.

    Medlin conducted the following psychological tests on Plaintiff: the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI); Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3); Trauma Symptom Inventory, 2nd Edition (TSI-2); and Inventory of Problems (IOP-29). 

    Although Plaintiff claimed that the validity of each test is disputed, Plaintiff’s motion failed to present sufficient evidence to support this assertion. Rather, a brief internet search suggested that, although some instability is inherent in any tests that involve self-reporting, the tests employed by Medlin were widely used and generally considered to be reliable, including for diagnosing PTSD.

    Finally, Plaintiff requested that Medlin be precluded from testifying about certain commentary concerning Plaintiff’s counsel that is contained in her report. While Medlin’s report certainly suggested that Plaintiff’s counsel exhibited unprofessional behavior during both of Medlin’s examinations of Plaintiff, at this stage the Court agreed that the admission of such information is not directly relevant to the issues to be presented at trial.

    Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Fayer and Otonichar

    Defendants filed a motion to bar the admission of testimony by Fayer and Otonichar under Daubert or, alternatively, requested that the Court order a Daubert hearing to determine the reliability of their testimony. 

    Joseph Otonichar

    First, the Defendants contended that Otonichar’s credentials “simply do not meet the standard” set forth in Rule 702(a). With Otonichar’s advanced education in psychiatry and his work experience, including as Medical Director of Mental Health at NYC-HHC Correctional Health Services and Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine, the Court disagreed.

    The Defendants further asserted that Otonichar’s methodology was unsupportable, claiming that he conducted two Zoom interviews of the Plaintiff in January and February 2024 lasting a combined total of four hours and “has not spoken to or engaged in any conversation” with the Plaintiff since that time. However, in preparing his written report, Otonichar reviewed: (i) psychiatric treatment records of Dr. Robert A. Reff, M.D. between July 2016 and January 2024; (ii) psychiatric treatment records of Dr. Wilson between August 2016 and January 2024; (iii) the psychiatric examination report of Fayer dated November 9, 2021; (iv) testimony and exhibits from the deposition of plaintiff on January 8, 2021; and (v) the pleadings and procedural filings in this action.

    Finally, the Defendants asserted that Otonichar’s report contains “no opinion on the issues of causation or permanency,” and that he must be precluded from offering opinions to the jury on those issues. The Court disagreed because Otonichar clearly addressed both causation and permanency in his report. Specifically, he stated that Plaintiff experienced a “new type of anxiety” as a result of the assault, which took the form of a “fear of intimacy and romantic relationships.”

    Steven A. Fayer

    Next, Defendants contended that Fayer must also be precluded from testifying at trial, asserting that his proposed testimony did not meet the requirements of Rule 702(b-d).

    First, Defendants asserted that Fayer’s methodology was insufficient, contending that he: (i) interviewed Plaintiff for a total of four hours via Zoom on September 29, 2021 and October 20, 2021, and has had no further contact with Plaintiff or reviewed any additional medical records since that call; (ii) did not review medical records from Plaintiff’s primary treating psychologist after December 15, 2020 or records from Plaintiff’s primary treating psychiatrist covering the four treatment sessions immediately preceding the assault, and did not review the records of Plaintiff’s second treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wilson, or her other medical providers; and (iii) did not administer any tests in evaluating Plaintiff’s psychological condition. However, a review of Fayer’s report indicated that he based his diagnosis of Plaintiff’s mental health conditions on his own examinations of Plaintiff and a review of her psychiatric treatment records with Robert Reff.

    Defendants further argued that Fayer’s expert report contained “no opinion on the issues of causation or permanency,” and that he must be precluded from offering opinions to the jury on those issues. However, Fayer stated that, as a result of the assault, Plaintiff developed “trauma-induced anxiety with features of posttraumatic stress” including “flashbacks, dreams, negative thoughts, avoidance, and isolation.” As a result, the Court held that Fayer’s report adequately addressed both causation and permanency.

    Rule 403

    Finally, Defendants contended that the testimony of Fayer and Otonichar should be precluded or limited as duplicative under Rule 403, asserting that both witnesses “will present predominantly duplicative testimony.”

    Because the two experts examined Plaintiff three years and five years after the assault, respectively, and are expected to testify regarding their separate conclusions with respect to Plaintiff’s psychological condition at each point in time, the Court held that the proposed testimony is neither cumulative nor duplicative.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert, Dr. Julie C. Medlin as well as the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts, Dr. Steven A. Fayer and Dr. Joseph Otonichar.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Medlin offers specialized evaluation and treatment for sexual and physical trauma victims. Her work experience is directly relevant to the issues in this action. Moreover, even if it were not, an expert’s training need not narrowly match the point of dispute in the case.
    • Fayer’s opinion is grounded in a reliable methodology commonly accepted in the psychiatric community. Any concerns regarding the depth or form of his evaluation goes to the weight of his testimony, rather than its admissibility, and may be addressed on cross-examination.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Betts V. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:20cv4772
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date: June 30, 2025
  • Psychiatry Expert’s Testimony Not Fully Excluded Despite His Reliance on a Previous Edition of the DSM

    Psychiatry Expert’s Testimony Not Fully Excluded Despite His Reliance on a Previous Edition of the DSM

    In a recent Michigan case involving allegations of sexual abuse against visually impaired minors in public schools, the admissibility of expert psychiatric testimony became a focal point. Specifically, the Court grappled with challenges to Dr. Gerald Shiener‘s expertise and methodology.

    Plaintiffs presented Shiener, a psychiatrist, to testify on the “causation and damages” related to the children’s psychiatric issues stemming from the alleged abuse. However, Defendants argued that Shiener lacked sufficient expertise in child psychiatry, given the plaintiffs’ ages at the time of the incidents and evaluations. Consequently, they sought to exclude his testimony.

    Psychiatry Expert Witness

    Dr. Gerald A. Shiener is a board-certified psychiatrist with over four decades of clinical experience, specializing in forensic psychiatry, addiction psychiatry, geriatric psychiatry, and psychosomatic medicine.

    Shiener earned his Doctor of Medicine degree from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. He completed his residency in psychiatry at Sinai Hospital of Detroit. His training included inpatient psychiatry, emergency psychiatry, adolescent psychiatry, and consultation-liaison psychiatry. He also completed an honorary clinical assistantship at London Hospital Medical College under Professor Desmond Pond.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Qualifications:

    Firstly, Plaintiffs countered that Shiener’s extensive experience, including his role as Chief of Psychiatry at a trauma center where he treated sexually abused children, his residency training in child psychiatry, and his appointment to a juvenile mental health advisory committee, qualified him to opine on the matter. Conversely, Defendants dismissed this experience, arguing that his residency training was decades old and his overall practice lacked a focus on forensic child psychiatry. In essence, the Defendants primarily argued that Shiener lacked the specific expertise required to testify on the psychiatric impact on child victims of sexual abuse. They contended that his experience in child psychiatry was limited, particularly in forensic settings, and that his relevant training was outdated. Thus, they challenged his credentials, asserting that he was not a sufficiently qualified “child psychiatrist.”

    Nevertheless, the Court ruled that it was not necessary for Shiener to have spent the majority of his time focused on child psychiatry in order to offer relevant opinions. Indeed, Shiener has received formal training in the psychiatric treatment of minors, and in addition, he has experience treating this population, including with respect to sexual abuse. Therefore, the initial objection based on a lack of child psychiatry expertise was largely dismissed.

    Methodology:

    Furthermore, Defendants raised concerns about Shiener’s methodology. They alleged he: failed to adequately review medical and school records, over-relied on maternal reports, used outdated assessment approaches, specifically the multi-axial assessment approach that was eliminated from the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, failed to rule out alternative causes, provided speculative opinions lacking data, and failed to cite reliable scientific literature.

    Conversely, the Plaintiffs defended Shiener’s methodology, arguing that he had utilized a variety of sources, including depositions, police reports, and his own evaluations. They also argued that reliance on the DSM-IV was acceptable, as it closely approximated the DSM-V in relevant areas, and that his clinical experience allowed him to make his professional judgements. Additionally, they provided an affidavit from Shiener, that backed up his methods, and reasoning.

    Reliability:

    More importantly, the Court addressed the reliability of Shiener’s methods. Specifically, Defendants criticized his reliance on the DSM-IV, which has been superseded by the DSM-V. However, the Court found that while the DSM-V is the current version, the DSM-IV was sufficient for diagnosis of PTSD in this case, because there is significant overlap between the two versions. Thus, the diagnosis of PTSD was admissible. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs argued that Shiener’s experience, allowed him to form his opinions, and that the DSM-IV was sufficient for the diagnosis of PTSD.

    Multi-Axial Assessment:

    However, the Court prohibited Shiener from using the DSM-IV’s multi-axial assessment approach, which was phased out in the DSM-V. Because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the reliability of this outdated system, the Court deemed it inadmissible.

    Causation and Prognosis:

    Defendants also objected to Shiener’s opinion that Plaintiffs’ psychiatric diagnoses arose from sexual abuse, arguing that his opinions on this issue did not address any “other external circumstances,” in addition to being conclusory and unsupported.

    The Court excluded Shiener’s opinions on causation, prognosis, and treatment. Namely, his statements regarding the cause of the Plaintiffs’ conditions were deemed conclusory and lacked adequate explanation. Similarly, his opinions on prognosis and treatment lacked sufficient support from scientific literature. Consequently, these aspects of his testimony were deemed inadmissible.

    While acknowledging some oversights, the Court noted that Shiener did utilize various sources, including depositions, police reports, educational records, and his own evaluations. Additionally, the Court recognized that experts conducting their own evaluations aren’t always required to review all medical records.

    Held

    In conclusion, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to strike Dr. Gerald Shiener’s testimony. His diagnoses, particularly of PTSD, were deemed admissible, while his multi-axial assessments, causation opinions, prognosis, and treatment recommendations were excluded.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Even with broad psychiatric qualifications, specific expertise relevant to the case (e.g., child psychiatry in cases involving child victims) can be challenged.
    • Outdated methodologies (like the DSM-IV’s multi-axial assessment, a feature of the DSM-IV that was phased out in the DSM-V) can be grounds for excluding expert testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Petty Et Al V. Garden City Public Schools Et Al
    Docket Number: 5:21cv11328
    Court: United States District Court, Michigan Eastern
    Order Date: March 10, 2025