Plaintiff initiated treatment with defendant psychiatrist at age 40, though she had been medicated for depression and other disorders since age 14. She reported a diagnosis of bipolar disorder from her previous caregivers. In the past, she was placed on a variety of medications, including Depakote, Effexor, Lexapro and Paxil. She frequently used alcohol and drugs, which the defendant told her that she must not do in order for her treatment to work.

She alternated between depressive and manic behavior, and was sometimes suicidal. The defendant repeatedly adjusted her medications in order to improve her symptoms. She continued to use recreational drugs and the defendant advised her to join a narcotics anonymous group and not to use cocaine again. She also was taking more of her prescription medications than prescribed.

He released her to return to work but remained concerned about the level of stress she was under. He treated her for five years, until she went to a family practitioner who diagnosed her with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The physician started her on Adderall, which she said immediately helped calm her down and helped her function in her new job.

She then took too much Adderall, and subsequently decided to stop all medications and reported feeling better. The defendant refused her any additional care because she refused to accept his diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

Plaintiff alleges the psychiatrist breached the standard of care in his treatment of her.

It is my opinion based on my education, training and experience, as well as from my review of plaintiff’s medical records, that defendant’s belief that plaintiff suffered from bipolar disorder in this case was reasonable given the fact that she carried that diagnosis from her earlier admission. She also described symptoms during her visits both early on and later in treatment that were consistent with manic episodes. Thus, it was reasonable for defendant to believe she was suffering from bipolar disorder. It is also my opinion, based on my education, training and experience, as well as my review of plaintiff’s medical records, that there was no breach in the standard of care. He was not negligent in his care and treatment. He properly assessed, examined and treated her. He appropriately treated her for her working bipolar diagnosis with supportive visits and medications. He properly monitored the medication regimen that he ordered for her and changed the medications in response to her symptoms. Additionally, the records show that in many instances, plaintiff took more medications than she was prescribed, and was taking excessive amounts of Xanax during the time he was treating her. Defendant responded properly and within the standard of care by discontinuing her Xanax and prescribing her chlordiazepoxide instead because there was less chance of misuse. Furthermore, he refused her requests to increase her medications. Defendant also warned plaintiff to cease her recreational drug usage and discussed this with her family. It is further my opinion, based on my education, training and experience, as well as my review of plaintiff’s medical records, that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no negligent act or omission by defendant led to any injury claimed.

1.) Did the care and treatment rendered to plaintiff comply with the standard of care? 2.) Was there was any negligence on the defendant’s part that caused or contributed to her alleged injuries?

Psychiatry Expert Witness Reviews Bipolar Diagnosis

This case involves a male employee of a hospital in the northeast. The employee suffered from ADHD/ADD and other known issues. He was frequently bullied and hassled by a direct supervisor, who refused to accommodate the employee’s request for a position/department change. An expert in human resources and talent acquisition was requested to assess the facility’s policies and procedures pertaining to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

ADD and ADHD are known disabilities that employers must accommodate. I have consulted for various hospitals throughout New England during my 20+ year career, all of which have emphasized human resources issues, concerns and protocol. I am very familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act and have authored articles pertaining to it which have been widely published. I'm also very familiar with the federal and state laws pertaining to ADA. I have previously served as an expert witness for employment issues such as the one described. I would be happy to review this case on behalf of the plaintiff.

1.) Have you ever served as an HR or policies director for a hospital system? 2.) If so, are there specific guidelines for accommodating or considering requests made by employees with known disabilities? 3.) Have you ever served as an expert witness on a wrongful termination case?

Location: Massachusetts B.A., Economics, Boston College J.D., Suffolk University Law School Certified: Senior Professional in Human Resources Fellow, College of Labor and Employment Attorneys Member, American Bar Association Member, National Human Resources Association Member, Society for Human Resources Management Member, American Society for Training and Development Published, 110+ publications on employment Former A******* D***** M******* & B***** Former E********* A******* J****** L**** Present, President, leading human resources consulting firm

This highly qualified expert has extensive experience in litigation matters concerning employment issues. She received a B.A. in Economics from Boston College and a J.D. from Suffolk University Law School. Her experience as a litigator makes her a specialist in the workplace environment, and she has authored and lectured on various topics including ADA, sexual harassment, and discrimination. She was also elected as a Fellow to the College of Labor and Employment Attorneys. Certified as a Senior Professional in Human Resources, she has consulted for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She currently serves as the President for a human resource consulting firm where she has consulted various businesses including hospitals.

Human Resources Expert Witness Evaluates Compliance with ADA Regulations

This case involves an employee at a Fortune 500 company who suffered from ADHD and ADD, among other issues, which prevented him from focusing for an extended period of time without treatment. He was frequently bullied and hassled by a direct supervisor after the employee requested to be transferred to another department where his disability would have been less of an impediment. The employee was regularly ridiculed by the superior during department meetings and in electronic communications, which caused stress that allegedly exacerbated the symptoms of his ADD/ADHD. The employee eventually had to leave work due to the repeated harassment, and was forced to survive on disability.

It sounds as though the person and institution ignored the Americans With Disabilities Act. I regularly perform forensic neuropsychiatric examinations, and I have a longstanding clinical and forensic interest in ADHD and the effects of bullying and disability discrimination and supervisory retaliation. I have been qualified as a forensic neuropsychiatric expert in over 150 cases over my 30 year career. In this instance, it is important that the employee's requests for assistance be acted on by the company in a reasonable manner, and harassment from a supervisor due to one's disability is never acceptable.

1. Do you regularly perform psych evaluations for disabled individuals? 2. Have you ever served as an expert witness?

Location: MA BA, Harvard University MD, Harvard University Residency, Psychiatry, Massachusetts Mental Health Center Fellowship, Psychiatry, Harvard University Board Certified, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology Board Certified, American Board of Forensic Psychiatry Fellow, American Psychiatric Association Member, American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Member, Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy Member, Massachusetts Psychiatric Society Member, International Academy of Law and Mental Health Published, 300+ peer-reviewed articles, books and book chapters Current P******** o* P********* m**** m****** u********* Current C******* C********* S**** m**** h*******

This double board certified expert has been practicing for over 40 years. He received his medical degree from Harvard University prior to completing his residency in Psychiatry at Massachusetts Mental Health Center, and he then completed a fellowship in Psychiatry at Harvard. Awarded the honor of Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, he is a former President of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law as well as a former President of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health. He has published over 300 peer-reviewed articles, books and book chapters in the field and has held Editorial Board appointments with a multitude of distinguished journals such as the "Journal of Clinical Psychiatry" and the "Harvard Review of Psychiatry". Currently, this expert is a Professor of Psychiatry at a major medical university as well as a Clinical Consulting Staff at a major hospital.

ADA Expert Opines on Harassment of Employee With ADHD

This case involves a quality control technician who worked at an automotive manufacturing plant in Idaho. She arrived at work sweating, shaking, and stammering, which aroused suspicions from her supervisor. She was sent to an on-site clinic for a drug test, and subsequently tested positive for amphetamines. As a result of the positive test result, she was immediately terminated. The worker subsequently claimed that her medications for ADHD, as well as other medications she had been taking at the time for a cold, were causing the test to show these results. An expert was retained to review her test results, and compare them with the list of medications she claimed to be taking and determine whether or not those medications could have corresponded to her subsequent positive test result for amphetamines.

I am quadruple board certified in Medical Toxicology, Occupational Medicine, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine. I am full-time faculty, as an Assistant Clinical Professor at a major medical university. I am the Medical Director for the Occupational Health Service at a major medical institution. I am very familiar with metabolites involved in the urine toxicology of methamphetamine. I have interpreted over 1,000 urine drug screens in my carrier. I am a certified Medical Review Officer (MRO), and have been providing urine drug interpretation for the Department of Defense since 2004. I consult for the Department of Energy on urine toxicology screening and interpretation. In addition, I am board certified in Medical Toxicology and Occupational Medicine. There are prescription and non-prescription causes for positive urine results. Review of the screening methodology and confirmatory testing would help with that. Also the chain of custody should be reviewed to determine if there was any possibility of tampering or adulteration.

1. Are you familiar with the metabolites involved in the urine toxicology of methamphetamine? 2. Could a person on methamphetamine have a positive urine toxicology?

Location: CA BS, Medical Technology, University of Arizona MPH, University of Arizona MBA, University of California Irvine MD, University of Arizona Residency, Family Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles Residency, Preventive Medicine, California Department of Public Health Fellowship, Occupational Medicine & Medical Toxicology, University of California San Francisco Board Certified: Family Medicine, Preventive Medicine, Medical Toxicology, Occupational Medicine Member, American College of Medical Toxicology Member, California Academy of Preventive Medicine Published: 4 peer-reviewed articles, 10 book chapters, 8 abstracts Former P********* M******* P******** U* A*** (****** A******* A*********** Former H********** H******** P*********** M****** C***** Current M****** D******* o* a* O*********** H***** S****** a C********* H******* Current C********** a P******** E************ H***** S******** U*** Current A******** P******** a M****** T********* S****** Current A******** M****** D******* a R******* P***** C****** S*****

West Coast

Idaho

This extremely well-qualified expert is quadruple-board certified in family medicine, occupational medicine, preventive medicine and medical toxicology. He earned his BS, MD and MPH degrees from the University of Arizona and completed residency training at UCLA and the California Department of Public Health in Family Medicine and Preventative Medicine, respectively. He is the president of the California Academy of Preventive Medicine and a member of various other professional organizations, including the American College of Medical Toxicology. He has formerly held attending physician positions in the emergency departments of several hospitals. Currently he serves as the medical director of an occupational health service at a top California medical center, as a medical toxicologist at a local premier hospital, and as the assistant medical director of a regional poison control system.

Toxicology Expert Discusses False Positive in Employee Drug Test

This case involves a child who suffered assault and battery while at school. The child had been notoriously disruptive and aggressive for the past few months but had not been diagnosed with any behavioral disorders. During recess, the child instigated an altercation with another classmate on the playground that became physical with the classmate. In response to the behavior, an untrained staff member allegedly dragged the flailing child by her hair across the pavement causing bruises and scraping to her knees. The child was subsequently assessed by a psychologist and diagnosed with ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder. It was alleged that the child was improperly supervised by the school staff and that the staff member who intervened was excessively punitive during this encounter. An expert in child psychology with specific experience in behavioral disorders was sought to speak to the standard of care and training needed to care for a child with a behavior problem, as well as opine on the psychological sequelae suffered by the child as a result of the actions taken by the supervising staff member during the incident in question.

I have a Ph.D. in developmental and clinical psychology. I have specialized in training parents in positive behavior modification for several years in my practice in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at a major research university. I have presented multiple workshops on parent management training for youth with ADHD and associated disruptive behavior disorders. I have several years of experience working with parents and teachers to support children with ADHD. Many childcare staff are unfamiliar with ADHD and how to handle youngsters with disruptive behavior disorders and benefit from targeted support around appropriate behavioral management, with an emphasis on positive reinforcement.

1. Please describe your background in child psychology. 2. Please describe your work with children who have behavioral disorders. 3. What is your experience in training childcare staff on proper care of children with these disorders?

Psychologists Opine On Excessive Punishment For Child With Behavioral Disorders

Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D.

Maryland has become the most recent state to adopt the Daubert standard for determining when a jury can hear expert witness testimony. In its August 28, 2020 decision in Rochkind v. Stevenson, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s courts must now also apply the Daubert factors when evaluating whether an expert’s testimony


Maryland has become the most recent state to 

 standard for determining when a jury can hear expert witness testimony. In its August 28, 2020 decision in 

the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s courts must now also apply the 

 factors when evaluating whether an expert’s testimony based on scientific evidence is admissible. The case was decided narrowly, by a 4-3 opinion. The 

 standard now replaces the previously-applied 

 was originally filed in 2011 by Starlena Stevenson. Stevenson alleged that she had been exposed to high lead levels in her childhood home, which was partly owned by Stanely Rochkind. Stevenson claimed that these lead levels had caused or contributed to a number of health conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), depression, and anxiety. In support of her claims, Stevenson presented the testimony of an expert witness who stated that Stevenson’s lead exposure caused her ADHD. Despite Rochkind’s objections, the trial court permitted the expert testimony.

After several trials, a jury returned a verdict for Stevenson of $1 million in economic damages and $2 million in non-economic damages. As Rochkind’s appeal to the Court of Special Appeals was pending, Stevenson filed for certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals, and Rochkind filed a cross-petition. The Maryland Court of Appeals was asked, among other things, to determine whether it was time to adopt the 

 that federal courts assessing the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence must do so according to an articulated set of factors. Prior to the 

decision, the federal courts and many states applied the 

, the U.S. Supreme Court held that expert witness testimony could be admitted if it was based on principles that were “generally accepted” in the expert’s field. Until recently, Maryland was one of the minority of states that continued to apply the 

 standard even after the federal ruling in 

, however, the Maryland Court of Appeals stated that 

“generally accepted” test sometimes failed to keep up with the ever-changing knowledge and norms of science. Since a “generally accepted” standard may be based on old or outdated science, it increases the risk that expert witness’s testimony will also be based on old or outdated science. In addition, the Maryland Court of Appeals noted that the 

 test has not adequately accounted for the way scientific questions are pursued in some fields, such as psychology and epidemiology. In these fields, the question of what is “generally accepted” is itself under study, making this concept challenging to apply to expert witness testimony. The Maryland Court of Appeals chose to shift to 

 standard incorporates general acceptance as just one factor among many. The 

 test also asks courts to consider other issues of relevance to expert witness’s testimony on scientific or technical principles.

Both expert witnesses and the attorneys who work with them will need to adjust their approach to expert testimony in the wake of 

. While the general acceptability of an expert witness’s approach remains an issue, it is no longer the central question governing whether the expert’s testimony will be accepted in Maryland courts. Instead, experts and lawyers must address additional points as well. For example, courts may now ask whether the expert’s theory has been tested or peer reviewed. They may ask what controls, if any, would be ordinarily applied to the expert’s methodology, and how those controls were addressed in this instance. They may also inquire as to whether and how the expert accounted for alternative explanations. The 

 standard does not represent a complete departure from Maryland’s prior standards. It does, however, open up additional avenues of scrutiny that expert witnesses and attorneys must be prepared to address.

ADHD Expert Witnesses

Find an expert witness near you

ADHD Related Blog Posts

Maryland Adopts the Daubert Standard For Determining Expert Testimony Admissibility

ADHD Expert Witness Case Studies

Psychiatry Expert Witness Reviews Bipolar Diagnosis

Human Resources Expert Witness Evaluates Compliance with ADA Regulations

ADA Expert Opines on Harassment of Employee With ADHD

Toxicology Expert Discusses False Positive in Employee Drug Test

Psychologists Opine On Excessive Punishment For Child With Behavioral Disorders

Connect with the Adhd expert witness you need to win your case