Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Symptom

  • 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 Expert Allowed to Opine on Psychological Injuries

    Psychiatry Expert Allowed to Opine on Psychological Injuries

    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.

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

    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
  • Psychology Expert’s CPTSD Opinions Admitted

    Psychology Expert’s CPTSD Opinions Admitted

    Danesh Noshirvan, an online entertainer and journalist, filed a civil action against Jennifer Couture alleging conspiracy and agency liability, as well as claims for defamation, tortious interference, misappropriation of likeness, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    Noshirvan alleged that Couture, Dr. Ralph Garramone, M.D. and OMG Realty, LLC , along with the other named Co-Defendants, conspired with a non-party, Joseph Camp (“Camp”) to tortiously interfere with Plaintiff’s business relationship with his former attorney, defame Plaintiff and intentionally inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff.

    Garramone Plastic Surgery, Jennifer Couture, Ralph Garramone, and OMG Realty, LLC challenged the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP.

    Gordon diagnosed Noshirvan with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder “due to the cyberbullying and damage to his reputation by Joey Camp.” He further opined that Noshirvan would “need many years of intensive psychotherapy to help deal with his CPTSD.”

    Psychology Expert Witness 

    Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP has practiced forensic psychology for nearly five decades (since 1976) in both civil and criminal arenas. He is board-certified in Clinical Psychology and in Psychoanalysis, and earned his
    doctorate from Temple University.

    He has authored over 100 publications in areas directly relevant to this case. For example, he co-published research on using the MMPI-2 to detect individuals “faking PTSD” after traumatic events.

    Gordon has taught forensic psychology at the Ph.D. level and given international workshops on psychological assessment and trauma.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Reliability of Methodology

    (1) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

    Defendants argued that Gordon’s use of the Clinician Administered PTSD Assessment Questionnaire for DSM-5 (“CAPS-5”) is unreliable.

    Specifically, Defendants pointed out that the DSM-5 requires “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” and the “presence of one or more of certain symptoms associated with the traumatic events, beginning after the traumatic events occurred.”

    Yet Gordon, according to Defendants, bases his diagnosis on the assertion of “cyberbullying and destruction of reputation.” Since Gordon, according to Defendants, failed to strictly adhere to the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5, the Defendants contended that Gordon’s testimony must be unreliable.

    First, Defendants argued that Gordon lacked any evidence of exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence, because he conducted no independent investigation on Noshirvan’s allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and interview. Any quarrel with not independently verifying any of the allegations that Noshirvan presented to Gordon can be appropriately dealt with on cross-examination.

    Defendants next argued that Gordon failed to follow DSM-5 diagnostic criteria because he did not observe at least one month’s worth of PTSD symptoms before diagnosing a patient with PTSD and relied almost exclusively on Plaintiff’s self-reporting. While Defendants contended that the rationale for using these specific tests was not definitively explained, such concern can be considered through cross-examination and is not a reason to exclude Gordon’s testimony.

    Further, Defendants also pointed the Court to the Georgetown Guidelines for Forensic Assessment of PTSD. However, it too is not enough to show the methodology is unreliable since those guidelines were published before the DSM-5 and did not outline any specific examinations that must be given. Accordingly, the Defendants have not shown that Gordon’s methodology was unreliable as it relates to his diagnosis of PTSD.

    (2) Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

    Defendants also argued that Gordon’s failure to adhere to the diagnostic criteria of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“CPTSD”) in the ICD-11 as well as his diagnosis being made solely for the purpose of litigation rendered his methodology unreliable.

    Gordon relied on more than mere allegations presented by Plaintiff. Gordon utilized an array of psychological assessments to determine the presence and severity of the symptoms before making any diagnosis. To the extent Defendants disagreed with the diagnosis, they were free to challenge Gordon on cross-examination.

    Defendants next argued that Gordon failed to explain the results of the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) or how he reached the diagnosis of CPTSD.

    However, Defendants failed to show how that the ITQ itself is unreliable, and though how Gordon exactly utilized the ITQ is unknown, it is clear that he still relied upon the underlying PTSD diagnosis in reaching his conclusion.

    Finally, Defendants argued that Gordon’s CPTSD diagnosis was made solely for purposes of this litigation. Defendants contended that while it is not dispositive, it further weighs against the reliability of Gordon’s testimony since Noshirvan only met with Gordon for about an hour via Zoom and was not re-examined in the future. While it is true Gordon only met with Noshirvan for about an hour, this argument went to the credibility of Gordon, not the reliability of his methodology.

    B. Helpfulness

    It is undisputed that Gordon utilized the CAPS-5, ITQ, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test. Although Defendants took issue with the conclusions reached by Gordon as well as the methods utilized, the conclusions went to a crucial issue in this case—whether Noshirvan suffered emotional distress.

    Further, Defendants acknowledged that the diagnostic criteria of PTSD and CPTSD is beyond the understanding of the average lay person. Defendants were able to cross-examine Gordon regarding why he utilized the specific tests in lieu of other examinations they contended are better suited for such diagnosis. These quarrels, however, are not sufficient to exclude the evidence.

    Ultimately, the Court found that Gordon satisfied all three prongs of Daubert, and the Court found that no undue prejudice from the anticipated testimony.

    Held

    • The Court denied as moot Defendant Garramone Plastic Surgery’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP.
    • Jennifer Couture, Ralph Garramone, and OMG Realty, LLC’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP was denied.
    • Garramone Plastic Surgery’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP was denied.
    • Patrick Trainor, Central Park of Southwest Florida, LLC, and Anti-Doxing League, Inc.’s motion to exclude the testimony of Robert M. Gordon, Ph.D., ABPP was denied.

    Key Takeaway

    Gordon satisfied all three prongs of Daubert because he utilized an array of psychological assessments to determine the presence and severity of the symptoms before making any diagnosis.

    Further, Defendants acknowledged that the diagnostic criteria of PTSD and CPTSD is beyond the understanding of the average lay person.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Noshirvan V. Couture
    Docket Number: 2:23cv1218
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: March 13, 2026

  • Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy

    Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy

    Oriental Trading Company, Inc. (“OTC”) is a retailer of novelties and gifts. Plaintiff Keith Kirksey is an African American male who began his employment with OTC on or about June 1, 2017.

    According to Kirksey, during his employment, he experienced a series of racially targeted incidents including the placing of a noose in his workspace and the placing of a clown head with, what he perceived as, a noose around its neck where Kirksey would see it. He reported these incidents to OTC who indicated it would investigate. Kirksey was dissatisfied with OTC’s investigation, and its outcome, and thereafter felt unfairly targeted by OTC in retaliation for his reporting.

    Kirksey filed a complaint against OTC stemming from his employment alleging claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and harassment/hostile work environment as well as negligent infliction of emotional distress.

    In an effort to establish his claims, Kirksey engaged Jerry Authier, Ph.D. as an expert. Authier is clinical psychologist licensed in Nebraska who was retained to conduct a psychological evaluation of Kirksey. In an effort to rebuke Kirksey’s claims, OTC designated Timothy D. Loudon as an expert in the field of human resources and workplace investigations.

    OTC filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness Authier and Kirksey filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Loudon.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    Jerry L. Authier, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist licensed in Nebraska. He has been practicing psychology in Omaha since 1973.

    He obtained his bachelor’s degree in psychology and doctorate in clinical psychology. Throughout his 50-year career, Authier was the director of behavioral science at the University of Nebraska and Clarkson Family Medicine and saw patients in private practice. Authier has authored various articles and books and presented at a range of conferences, primarily during his years as an educator.

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

    Human Resources Expert Witness

    Timothy D. Loudon has a juris doctor degree, is licensed to practice law in multiple states, and has practiced labor and employment law in various capacities since 1981.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Authier

    OTC did not move to preclude Authier from testifying altogether but sought
    to limit his testimony to that of a treating provider. OTC primarily argued that Authier’s opinions should be excluded because the foundation of Authier’s opinions rest solely on information Kirksey (and perhaps his counsel) conveyed to him.

    Authier opined that Kirksey suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, persistent depressive disorder with paranoid ideation, and generalized anxiety disorder. He further concluded that Kirksey’s negative psychological and psychiatric symptoms are attributable to Kirksey’s time working at OTC. In reaching these conclusions, Authier used a diagnostic interview, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd Edition (“MMPI-2”) and the Sachs Sentence Completion Test. Authier further opined that Kirksey would need weekly psychotherapy sessions for an indeterminate amount of time but “at least a year if not longer and possibly the rest of his life.”

    During his deposition, taken almost a year after his diagnostic interview, Authier testified that Kirksey did not participate in weekly therapy sessions with him. Authier stated that at the time he wrote his opinion he believed weekly therapy sessions would be the best way for Kirksey to recover from his symptoms.

    Authier further testified that he is not an expert in EMDR therapy but stated it might be of help to Kirksey, when done with a specialized provider, to work through some of the symptoms of trauma. Similarly, Authier testified that he is not licensed to prescribe medication but that “the research shows that [psychotherapy along with medication] is the best way to help people that are struggling with psychiatric and psychological symptoms.

    Analysis

    First, OTC argued that Authier’s opinions are irrelevant because the June 18, 2020, incident (of which Authier’s opinion relies) is outside the applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit.

    However, the Court found that Authier’s opinions regarding Kirksey’s conditions and the source of those conditions is wholly relevant to the ultimate issues in this case and his testimony would be useful to the finder in fact when deciding those issues.

    OTC sought to exclude Authier’s opinions as to EMDR therapy and psychotropic medications based on his qualifications. While Authier testified that he is not an expert in EMDR nor a medical doctor, his limited opinions on these two topics fall within his purview of a clinical psychologist.

    Authier did consider whether Kirksey’s symptoms could be attributable to other causes – such as childhood trauma. He determined based on his testing and clinical experience that this was unlikely. Moreover, when presented with records from a prior provider, Authier did not change his opinion.

    The Defendant did not identify any plausible alternative cause of Kirksey’s conditions, thus strengthening the Court’s conclusion that the methodology employed by Authier is reliable. In addition to the diagnostic interview, Authier had approximately 16 sessions with Kirksey which confirmed Authier’s impressions and diagnosis of Kirksey.

    Authier’s clinical impressions, based on his standardized diagnostic tools and his diagnostic evaluation, is that Kirksey is experiencing symptoms and those symptoms are tied to his time at OTC.

    Moreover, OTC sought to exclude Authier’s opinion relating to his original recommendation that Kirksey participate in weekly psychotherapy sessions, arguing it is speculative and unsupported by the facts. The Court found that this information may provide context to the testimony at trial.

    Loudon

    Loudon opined about OTC’s handling of each of Kirksey’s complaints. To sustain a claim against OTC for a racially hostile work environment, Kirksey must show (1) he is a member of a protected group, (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based upon race, (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment, and (5) the employer knew or should have known of the racially discriminatory harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial measures to end the harassment.

    At the time of trial, the “promptness” and “effectiveness” of an employer’s response is a question of fact for the jury to resolve and a matter for the Court to instruct.

    Allowing Loudon to testify as an expert to the “adequacy” and “reasonableness” of OTC’s investigation would invade the province of the jury.

    Held

    • The Court denied Defendant Oriental Trading Company’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness Jerry Authier.
    • The Court granted Plaintiff Keith Kirksey’s motion to exclude the testimony of Timothy Loudon.

    Key Takeaway

    With respect to differential diagnosis, opinion testimony is unreliable “only when an opponent points to a plausible alternative cause of the injury and the doctor offers no explanation for concluding that it was not the sole cause.”

    OTC’s attacks regarding the completeness of Authier’s methodology go to the weight and not the admissibility of his testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Kirksey V. Oriental Trading Company Inc.
    Docket Number: 8:24cv268
    Court Name: United States District Court, Nebraska
    Order Date: March 09, 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
  • Food Science Expert Witness Barred from Testifying Over Lack of Medical Credentials

    Food Science Expert Witness Barred from Testifying Over Lack of Medical Credentials

    This dispute arose from Plaintiff Denise Young’s claim that she suffered from Salmonella Gastroenteritis due to food poisoning after consuming a meal her son purchased for her on June 11, 2022, from a Chipotle restaurant in Newark, New Jersey.

    Young’s son purchased a Pollo Asado Bowl with Queso Blanco from Chipotle at 6:48 PM on June 11, 2022 and delivered it to her. This dish, Pollo Asado comprises chicken, black beans, tomato salsa, white rice, corn salsa,
    fajita veggies and queso blanco.

    Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Marvin E. Winston.

    Food Science Expert Witness

    Marvin E. Winston is an experienced food scientist. He has over thirty years of experience supporting attorneys and insurance companies by resolving a wide range of issues and offering reliable assistance in legal matters.

    Want to know more about the challenges Marvin E. Winston has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant contended that Winston’s report was procedurally deficient and therefore inadmissible. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to (a) produce the report in a timely manner, (b) include the expert disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and (c) provide Winston’s CV. Defendant further argued that the report was substantively flawed, asserting that Winston’s conclusions were speculative, his methodology unreliable, and his testimony unlikely to assist the trier of fact in resolving the key factual disputes.

    Defendant emphasized that although Winston identified himself as a “Consulting Food Scientist,” he provided no explanation or supporting materials to clarify what that title meant in the context of Plaintiff’s allegations or how it qualified him to offer the opinions in the report. Additionally, Winston had not conducted any testing of the food in question. Defendant also maintained that Winston was unqualified to make a medical diagnosis or establish a causal link between Plaintiff’s meal and her alleged illness, and argued that the report lacked any meaningful probative value.

    Plaintiff argued that she disclosed Winston as an expert to the Defendant and the Court and that any failure to make disclosures is “harmless because the Defendant received and read the report and had an opportunity to formulate a reply to challenge the CV as well as the, qualifications data and other cases which during the last 4 years Winston has testified as a witness.” 

    Analysis

    Putting aside the procedural deficiencies and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the substantive issues Defendant raised are significant and as such, the Court found that the proposed testimony of Winston did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 702.

    While the Court did not doubt Winston’s purported qualifications as a “Consulting Food Scientist” and that he testified as an expert in other proceedings related to that title, he is not qualified to opine on the medical causation for Plaintiff’s symptoms on June 12, 2022 here.

    Winston is not a medical doctor and, as Defendant stated in its moving brief, there is “no evidence or expert material presented to explain what” Winston’s purported food science expertise “means in the context of the Plaintiff’s allegations, or how if at all it qualifies him to offer the opinions contained therein.”

    Additionally, Winston identified no methodology to support his conclusion that Plaintiff “was served food at Chipotle Mexican Grill which resulted in her contracting food poisoning”—a medical diagnosis— and Winston himself admitted that he is uncertain as to what the “causative organism” of Plaintiff’s symptoms was because no tests were performed to make such a determination.

    The Court did not see anything in Winston’s report that led to the conclusion that Plaintiff suffered from salmonella poisoning as alleged, and more significantly, the Court did not see anything in the Winston Report that would help the trier of fact determine whether Plaintiff suffered salmonella poisoning from consuming Defendant’s food.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Marvin E. Winston.

    Key Takeaway:

    As the 2023 Amendments to Rule 702 make clear, “the rule has been amended to clarify and emphasize that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.” Without proper medical qualifications and any identified
    methodology, Winston’s opinion simply will not help the trier of fact.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Young V. Chipotle Mexican Grill Of Colorado, LLC Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:22cv7452
    Court Name: United States District Court, New Jersey
    Order Date: June 26, 2025