NATIONWIDE / INTERNATIONAL
|North of San Francisco|
35 Wolfe Grade
Kentfield, CA 94904
300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza,Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
Dr. Raffle has opined, testified and conducted
IMEs in States and provinces throughout North
America and abroad.
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D., a Board Certified Forensic Psychiatrist
, has over 38 years of experience offering his expert opinion in Federal and State jurisdictions. Dr. Raffle has consulted for attorneys, insurers, employers and judges. His track record and experience is impressive: over 5000 psychiatric evaluations, 700+ depositions, 150+ trials
, a successful clinical practice, teaching career at U.C. Medical School, and Hastings College of the Law postgraduate course "Trial and Appellate Advocacy" for 11 years instructing attorneys about the direct and cross-examination of expert witnesses.
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D. and Associates' expertise includes, but is not limited to the following:
Licensed in California.
- Chronic Pain
- Psychosomatic Medicine
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
- Psychogenic Pain
- Traumatic Brain injury and other Dementias
- False Memory Syndrome
- Emotional Distress: Intentional & Unintentional infliction
- Emotional Distress: Evaluation of
- Fitness For Duty
- Risk/Threat Workplace Violence Assessment
- Wrongful Termination
- Discrimination (ADA, Title VII, EEOC)
- Harassment (sexual, etc.)
|Employment LitigationMedical MalpracticeSubstance AbuseTestamentary CapacityUndue Influence (including Cults)Toxic ExposureCatastrophic InjuryTemporary and Permanent DisabilityNeed for TreatmentSexual MolestationChildhood and Adolescence DisordersMedical Records ReviewAssist in Preparation for Cross-examination of Expert Witness|
My teacher and mentor, Dr. Bernard Diamond, pondered the question about the role of the psychiatric expert and other experts in the courtroom.
My teacher and mentor, Dr. Bernard Diamond, pondered the question about the role of the psychiatric expert and other experts in the courtroom. My first public presentation was to the American Criminology Society on this topic, and it has continued to occupy my attention to the present
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