banner ad
Experts Logo

articles

The Therapist as Expert Witness?

Reasons the Treating Psychotherapist Should Not Be the Expert Witness

By: Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D. and Associates

Tel: (415) 461-4845
Fax: (415) 461-4039
Email Dr. Stephen M. Raffle
Website: www.rafflemd.com

Profile on Experts.com.



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.

I believe a number of fallacies exist in this conclusion:

If the patient is conniving, then the therapist is being duped into undertaking a sham therapy.

If the patient believes the therapist is going to be his expert witness, then consciously or unconsciously the patient will withhold information detrimental to his case and over-emphasize facts favorable to it.

Therapists undertake therapy with the implicit understanding that the relationship is private and privileged under almost all circumstances. This enables the patient to divulge embarrassing or damaging information which he wouldn't want revealed. After the fact, how can the patient give an informed consent when he doesn't know what personal information will be divulged.

Once the therapist is perceived as an advocate, I believe the therapist's impartiality and non-judgmental attitude is replaced with the perception of approval and advocacy. A therapeutic boundary is crossed. Therapy is damaged. Being an expert witness for one's patient does not further the therapy. The Hippocratic Oath "above all do not harm" is disregarded.

Setting these reasons to the side, is the assumption true that a comprehensive structured forensic psychiatric exam including a review of all records relevant depositions, expert reports and psychological testing less reliable than a psychotherapy which is defined by the patient's transference, unstructured free association therapeutic process, and non-judgmental therapeutic attitude of the therapist where the therapeutic task is to help the patient understand emotional conflicts and resolve them. It is not far-fetched to imagine the therapist-expert developing opinions during discovery which might be damaging to the therapeutic process. He can't withdraw because doing so damages the therapy, he shouldn't lie because that damages his therapeutic impartiality, and he becomes the patient's advocate in the patient's mind which also introduces a non-therapeutic parameter into the therapy.

Psychotherapy does not involve weighing all of the clinical facts and rendering a medical-legal opinion with a reasonable medical probability. It doesn't involve being an impartial evaluator who has no vested interest in the outcome of the case. Psychotherapy isn't about assuming a skeptical mind set in order to weigh the plaintiff's statements with other facts and reconcile the conflicted information within the context of the lawsuit. Undertaking a real, impartial forensic psychiatry evaluation is not therapeutic. The content of therapy is part of the basis of an expert opinion but there is much more to the evaluative process which is beyond the scope of therapy. Once the therapist crosses the line to expert, he can't go back. The bell cannot be unrung.

DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in this article do not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional legal advice before acting on any of the information presented.


Stephen M. Raffle, M.D. is a Board Certified Forensic Psychiatrist with over 36 years of experience offering his expert opinion in Federal and State jurisdictions.

See Dr. Stephen Raffle's Profile on Experts.com.

©Copyright - All Rights Reserved

DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY AUTHOR.

Related articles

Burton-Singerman-Psychiatry-Malpractice-Expert-Photo.jpg

7/11/2017· Psychiatry

Civil Litigation and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

By: Dr. Burt Singerman

An ever-increasing number of plaintiffs are claiming post-traumatic stress disorder. Why such a sudden, marked increase in litigation of this form? Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was first described in the sixth century B.C. The symptoms associated with the illness have not changed, though the name of the condition itself has, naturally, changed. In World War I the disorder was labeled "shell shock," linking the condition to the close lines between battling armies and the continuous firing of munitions. In World War II, the condition came to be called "combat neurosis." The term "post-traumatic stress disorder" entered the psychiatric nomenclature with the 1980 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Edition.

stephen_raffle_photo.jpg

10/27/2014· Psychiatry

Undue Influence in the Making of a Bequest: A Forensic Psychiatrist Examines The Evidence

By: Dr. Stephen M. Raffle

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.

gilbert_kilman_photo.jpg

11/19/2011· Psychiatry

The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child: The Cornerstone Treatment of a Preschool Boy from an Extremely Impoverished Environment

By: Dr. Gilbert Kliman

Monroe was the kind of child from whom usually little is expected therapeutically. A member of a disadvantaged ethnic minority, he lived in the poverty of a big-city slum ghetto...

;
Experts.com-No broker Movie Ad

Follow us

linkedin logo youtube logo rss feed logo