• Informed Consent &
  Malpractice
• Employment Litigation
  ADA - Disability - Sexual Misconduct
  Discrimination - Worker's Compensation
• Emotional &
  Physical Damages
  Conscious Pain & Suffering
  Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
  Neuropsychiatry and Brain Imaging
• Standards for Experts
• Product Liability
  Medical Devices & Pharmaceuticals
  Toxic Tort
• Criminal Justice &
  Public Safety
  Diminished Capacity - Drug Addiction
  Competency to Confess
  Death Penalty Mitigation
  Workplace Safety
• Family & Custody Issues
• Testamentary &
  Contractual Capacity
• Professional &
  Organizational Ethics
  Patient Care - Managed Care - Privacy
• Psychoanalysis &
  Cultural Perspectives

Standards for Experts

Recent Supreme Court decisions emphasize the need to regulate the admissibility of expert testimony by means of standards that require opinions going beyond ipse dixit; that is, that are based on more than the fact that the expert "said it him/herself." Dr. Bursztajn's recent article published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (32:205-10, 2003) Avoiding Ipse Dixit Mislabeling: Post-Daubert Approaches to Expert Clinical Opinions informs us how experts can reduce the likelihood that their conclusions will be mislabeled.

• Dr. Bursztajn's recently published article in the September 2007 issue of Psychiatric Annals, DSM misuse pitfalls evident in clinical training and courtroom testimony.

• Dr. Bursztajn's recent article with Milo Fox Pulde, Darlyn Pirakitikulr and Michael Perlin published in Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy November 2006. Kumho for Clinicicans in the Courtroom - Inconsistency in the Trial Courts.

• Dr. Bursztajn's article with Dr. Tom Gutheil, Attorney Abuses of Daubert Hearings, on the various tactics employed by attorneys looking to take advantage of Daubert hearings.

• Dr. Thomas Gutheil's recent presentation to Harvard Medical School's Program in Psychiatry and the Law: Depositions: tips and traps.

• Expert Witness Disclosures: How to Comply and Avoid Exclusion. Bench & Bar of Minnesota, April 2008, by Courtland C. Merrill, Esq.
• Supreme Court increases reliance on forensic psychiatric expert opinion (decided 1.22.02)
  Finding of Complete Lack of Volition Not Required For Civil Commitment of Dangerous Sexual Offender
• Experts Permitted to Testify on Link Between Prescription Drug and Suicide In Miller v. Pfizer, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9816, a U.S. District Court held that two physicians who had done substantial research on the link between certain types of prescription drugs and suicide may testify in a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
• Social Workers not qualified to offer medical or psychiatric opinions under Daubert's progeny.
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)
• National Certification for Forensic Psychiatrists: A Preview of the Post-Daubert Expert An examination of the admissibility of scientific testimony in court, an important issue in the education of judges and juries as claims of emotional, medical, and psychological damages may sound dubious to the non-expert.
• U.S. Supreme Court Rules About Standards In Expert Witness Post-Daubert
• The McNaughton rule -- not knowing right from wrong

Summaries of some recent court decisions as to the admissibility of expert evidence post the U.S. Supreme Court Daubert decision:

• Case: Wilson v. Woods
• Case: Price Ex. Rel. Price v. NYC Housing Authority
• Case: Schlader v. Interstate Power Co.
• Article: Massachusetts Federal District Court Applies Kumho Tire to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony on 'Hedonic' Damages

See also:

• Case: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)
• Case: Mayotte M. Jones v. Metro West, Inc.
• Case: Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael
• Case: General Electric Co. v. Joiner
• Case: Weisgram v. Marley Co.
• Article: "Daubert Without Prejudice: Achieving Relevance and Reliability Without Randomness"
• Case: Doe v. Doe. Expert Testimony & Workman's Compensation

• Federal Rule of Evidence 702 - The Proposed Revision
• Judicial Conference Approves Changes to Federal Rules of Evidence
• Important Supreme Court Decisions
• Case: McClellan v. Collar. Who can be an "expert" in a medical specialty ruling.
• Case: Aldridge v. Edmunds. Pennsylvania limits use of authoritative texts in direct testimony.
• Case: United States v. Alzanki. Sexual abuse victomologist allowed to testify in a case involving involuntary servitude as it was determined "that the expert possesses specialized knowledge which will assist the trier better to understand a fact in issue."
• State Justice Institute (SJI) National Benchbook Project on Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence & Testimony. An excellent introduction to the post-Daubert influenced increase in judicial gate keeping and discretion regarding expert testimony. Expert panel includes Professor Bursztajn. To order call the American Bar Association: (202) 662-1570