Dr. Adhia is double-Board-Certified in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry, and is Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). His forensic and clinical practices focus on the psychiatric impact of physical and emotional abuse, and violence, with broad med-legal implications. Dr. Adhia evaluates and treats psychiatric injury and disability in victims and alleged abusers. He treats patients in high-risk and security sensitive settings including maximum security prisons and correctional psychiatric hospitals, inmates on death row and segregated in Isolation. In addition, Dr. Adhia works with Physicians for Human Rights to assess victims of kidnapping and false imprisonment, human trafficking, undue influence, physical and sexual abuse, rape, and fear of imminent death. In all populations, he assesses PTSD, Anxiety, Depressive Disorders, risk of suicide, and malingering. He is experienced in treatment and impact of drug and alcohol abuse on decision-making. Dr. Adhia also treats severe psychosis (Schizophrenia, hallucinations) and psychopathology.
Dr. Adhia’s findings consider complicating factors, such as emotional distress worsened by physical and emotional isolation from family and support. Other factors are pre-existing mental and physical illness, competency and capacity (e.g. dementia, Intellectual Disability.)
As a physician, Dr. Adhia is uniquely qualified to review medical records and doctor reports.
Dr. Adhia renders diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plans.
Institutional medicine, medical malpractice, and standard of care, apply to both public and private facilities, including government regulated correctional institutions and psychiatric hospital. Dr. Adhia is skilled in these med-legal issues.
Dr. Adhia conducts Independent Medical Examinations, review of records, and reports his med-legal findings and opinions. He is available to testify in civil, criminal, probate, Federal, Immigration and administrative jurisdictions.
- Sexual abuse
- Malpractice and Standard of Care
- Alcohol and Drug Abuse
- Anxiety and Depression
Dr. Stephen M. Raffle
35 Wolfe Grade
Kentfield (San Francisco) CA
Licensed in California.
|35 Wolfe GradeStephen M. Raffle, M.D. is double Board-Certified, in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry. Dr. Raffle has over 43 years as a clinical and forensic psychiatrist offering his expert opinion in Federal and State jurisdictions nationwide. In addition to serving as an expert witness, Dr. Raffle consults to attorneys, judges, insurers, and to employers regarding Fitness for Duty and Risk of Violence (Threat) Assessment:5000+ psychiatric assessmentsForensic testimony, 700 depositions and trial testimonySuccessful clinical practice
Kentfield, CA 94904 (San Francisco Bay Area)
The job of an expert witness is to educate a jury, judge, attorney, trier of fact about the forensic psychiatrist's conclusions and how those opinions were derived, in a manner well-reasoned and skillful, easily understood by every person, not only another Forensic Psychiatrist. In short, an educator. Dr. Raffle’s experience as an educator extends well beyond a forensic venue, yet underpins the key to his ability to explain his opinions.
Prof. of Psychiatry, UCSF Medical School, 20 yearsHastings College of the Law postgraduate course "Trial and Appellate Advocacy" instructing seasoned attorneys about the direct and cross-examination of expert witnesses, with special focus on mental health experts and licensed medical professionals, Psychiatrists (MD), Psychologists, LCSW, MFT, and physicians in other medical specialties, 11 years
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D. & Associates' expertise is well-established in forensic assessment in the areas of:
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- Dementia and Competency
- Testamentary Capacity
- Undue Influence
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- Emotional Distress: Intentional & Unintentional infliction
- Emotional Distress: Forensic Evaluation to render medical-legal opinion
- Diagnosis and Need for Treatment
- Fitness For Duty
- Risk/Threat Workplace Violence Assessment
- Wrongful Termination
- Discrimination (ADA, Title VII, EEOC)
- Employment Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
- Catastrophic Injury
- Temporary and Permanent Disability
- Medical Records Review
- Assist in Preparation for Direct and Cross-examination of Expert Witnesses and Deposition of expert witnesses
In order for a medical opinion to be admissible as evidence in civil, criminal and administrative cases, the basis of the opinion must fulfill either the Daubert Criteria or the Frye test, depending on the jurisdiction. The judge of the court rules on the admissibility of the expert opinion. The effect of Daubert has been to limit expert testimony to opinions which are based on a scientific foundation. Daubert specifies that adequate scientific support and method and a known error rate must exist. The testimony of a mental health expert rendering an opinion using criteria which does not meet Daubert standards is weakened by the implication that it is not based on "sound science." In some instances, for example, a mental health expert uses an approach where there are no peer-reviewed studies or methods, such as when psychologists compose their own neuropsychological test batteries. In most cases where an attorney is considering a "Daubert challenge," a contemporaneous and up-to-date literature search is indicated. Also, extensive case law presently exists as to specific issues. Being familiar with the Daubert criteria enhances effectiveness in challenging a mental health expert's opinion, whether on voir dire or cross examination. On direct examination, the strengths of an opinion reached under Daubert criteria become a "teaching moment" for the trier of fact, because it will be founded on the science of mental health assessment.
Undue influence occurs when the testator's freewill and freedom of choice in the disposition of the assets of his or her estate is replaced by the substituted judgment/wishes of another. This can apply to creating a will, codicil to amend a will, trust or other legal instrument.
The medical expert cannot express an opinion about the ultimate question to the trier of fact: how much is the plaintiff's emotional distress (emotional injury) worth in dollars? Yet when the question of these monetary damages is put to a jury, their deliberations are better-served if considered in the context of a Forensic Psychiatrist's knowledgeable findings and testimony.
All psychiatric reports evaluate something, but not always the same thing. For example, eligibility for benefits, or fitness to do a job. To make sense of the report, the reader must determine what is being evaluated and how it is being done
In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged, it often occurs that the plaintiff’s attorney designates the treater as his expert. Usually the argument is that the plaintiff’s own therapist has spent many more hours with the plaintiff than the defense expert and therefore "knows" the plaintiff better. The treater often agrees with this reasoning