What kinds of issues get expert psychologists/psychiatrists dismissed/disqualified/excluded?

[ForensicPsychFightClub]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hello, all.
Apologies if this type of specialty question is discouraged here. But, I have seen bits and pieces from some of our regulars that they may do medicolegal work, at least in some capacity.

So, I lead a discussion/consult group for local forensic psychologists, and I’ve been wanting to dig into the topic of expert disqualification for a while.

I know there are legal resources that discuss the kinds of issues that can get mental health experts into trouble, but they tend to be fairly broad and general. I was also planning to look at some case law examples (e.g., U.S. v. Truitt, Tchatat v. New York, etc.). Those cases are helpful for illustrating some of the more egregious problems, like offering testimony about someone you never actually evaluated, but I was hoping to crowdsource a little more practical experience from folks in the field.

For newer forensic folks like myself, disqualification can sometimes be talked about almost like a professional scarlet letter - something to avoid at all costs because it might come up every time on voir dire, or like a thing that will tank your professional reputation. But I’m curious how often these issues actually arise, what the typical consequences are, and what kinds of problems are most likely to seriously undermine an expert’s credibility or ultimately result in disqualification in the first place.

So, with that in mind:

Has anyone in your professional network been dismissed or disqualified as an expert? If so, do you know why? Has it happened to you?

And if you’ve looked into this topic before, are there any resources, articles, cases, or other materials you would point me and the members of our discussion group toward?

Thanks in advance for your time and perspective, everyone

 

[PsyDr]

Some institutional lore:
1) Stuart Greenberg, PhD. Past president of ABPP (fp). Got caught making peepee tapes of people in his office bathroom, and killed himself.
2) Robert O'Block "PhD". Created his own boards, then killed his 27 year old girlfriend, before turning the gun on himself at 62 years old.

 

[cara susanna]

I don't know if this is the same thing, but one of the psychiatrist witnesses in the Lindsay Clancy case is no longer at his previous employer (speculation is that he was asked to resign)

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't know if this is the same thing, but one of the psychiatrist witnesses in the Lindsay Clancy case is no longer at his previous employer (speculation is that he was asked to resign)

I believe the op is referencing an expert having their testimony/opinion excluded from a case. Such as getting someone Daubert/Fryed out of a case. To OP, OC tries it all the time, but to my knowledge they've never succeeded in any of my cases. It's happened to some colleagues of mine, but they've been in the field for decades, and do this FT, so it's probably bound to happen. Though, there are ways to guard against it.

 

[PsyDr]

1) Not using an established, published, method. Unfortunately, most psychologists create their opinions using ???????
a. Dr. Denkowski, a death penalty psychologist in Texas, got in trouble for using a method of evaluation of risk that he created. The courts barred him from testifying about the death penalty again.
2) Track record:
a. There is an expert database, that documents previous cases, challenges, opinions in types of cases, and such. If you offer an opinion for one case, and have an opposite opinion in an identical case, you're about to get screwed. If your opinions were later disproved, you are screwed (e.g., saying someone needs 24hr SNF care, and a PI records the person driving to a concert, your opinion is now screwed).
3) Your personal life. Anything legal will be found first (e.g., your criminal history/DUIs, the facts from your divorce, etc). Then your publications. Then things from social media, tax records, voter registration, etc. That's before they get aggressive.

There is a strange ratio to the above. If you are dq'ed after testifying 100 times, there is limited effect on your career (e.g., one of the preeminent forensic psychiatrists has admitted errors in recall, and said that he changed his mind about a subject after learning more; the neuropsychologist in Vincent Gigante's trial, etc). If you are dq'ed in your first 2 cases, you'll probably won't get hired again.

 

[WisNeuro]

1) Not using an established, published, method. Unfortunately, most psychologists create their opinions using ???????
a. Dr. Denkowski, a death penalty psychologist in Texas, got in trouble for using a method of evaluation of risk that he created. The courts barred him from testifying about the death penalty again.
2) Track record:
a. There is an expert database, that documents previous cases, challenges, opinions in types of cases, and such. If you offer an opinion for one case, and have an opposite opinion in an identical case, you're about to get screwed. If your opinions were later disproved, you are screwed (e.g., saying someone needs 24hr SNF care, and a PI records the person driving to a concert, your opinion is now screwed).
3) Your personal life. Anything legal will be found first (e.g., your criminal history/DUIs, the facts from your divorce, etc). Then your publications. Then things from social media, tax records, voter registration, etc. That's before they get aggressive.

There is a strange ratio to the above. If you are dq'ed after testifying 100 times, there is limited effect on your career (e.g., one of the preeminent forensic psychiatrists has admitted errors in recall, and said that he changed his mind about a subject after learning more; the neuropsychologist in Vincent Gigante's trial, etc). If you are dq'ed in your first 2 cases, you'll probably won't get hired again.

I've seen this come up more than once. All they've ever been able to find of mine is an out of date LinkedIn page, much to OC's stated displeasure.

 

[futureapppsy2]

1) Not using an established, published, method. Unfortunately, most psychologists create their opinions using ???????
a. Dr. Denkowski, a death penalty psychologist in Texas, got in trouble for using a method of evaluation of risk that he created. The courts barred him from testifying about the death penalty again.
2) Track record:
a. There is an expert database, that documents previous cases, challenges, opinions in types of cases, and such. If you offer an opinion for one case, and have an opposite opinion in an identical case, you're about to get screwed. If your opinions were later disproved, you are screwed (e.g., saying someone needs 24hr SNF care, and a PI records the person driving to a concert, your opinion is now screwed).
3) Your personal life. Anything legal will be found first (e.g., your criminal history/DUIs, the facts from your divorce, etc). Then your publications. Then things from social media, tax records, voter registration, etc. That's before they get aggressive.

There is a strange ratio to the above. If you are dq'ed after testifying 100 times, there is limited effect on your career (e.g., one of the preeminent forensic psychiatrists has admitted errors in recall, and said that he changed his mind about a subject after learning more; the neuropsychologist in Vincent Gigante's trial, etc). If you are dq'ed in your first 2 cases, you'll probably won't get hired again.

I'm always surpised Dietz didn't face more professional consequences for outright lying on the stand in the Andrea Yates case, tbh.

 

[ForensicPsychFightClub]

I believe the op is referencing an expert having their testimony/opinion excluded from a case. Such as getting someone Daubert/Fryed out of a case. To OP, OC tries it all the time, but to my knowledge they've never succeeded in any of my cases. It's happened to some colleagues of mine, but they've been in the field for decades, and do this FT, so it's probably bound to happen. Though, there are ways to guard against it.

That’s kind of the impression i’ve been getting when reviewing case law to see what issues tend to be contentious. The general consensus has been it happens really rarely, if at all. Most case law concerns people practicing clearly outside of thier scope, like a social psychologist offering opinions in an Insanity eval or the like.

It is honestly hard to find examples where a clinical psychologist got excluded, except for things like U. S. v. Fishman where you have psychs testifying about 'thought reform' (i.e., fancy term for brainwashing). Basically, it looks like if you don't take a whacko stance, it happens very very rarely. But for how much of a bogeyman it is in the field, it can't be that simple, right? I mean, it does happen - as you said, for some folks who work full time in the field, it is almost an inevitability. It is just quite hard to answer why it happens, in the rare cases it does.

1) Not using an established, published, method. Unfortunately, most psychologists create their opinions using ???????
a. Dr. Denkowski, a death penalty psychologist in Texas, got in trouble for using a method of evaluation of risk that he created. The courts barred him from testifying about the death penalty again.
2) Track record:
a. There is an expert database, that documents previous cases, challenges, opinions in types of cases, and such. If you offer an opinion for one case, and have an opposite opinion in an identical case, you're about to get screwed. If your opinions were later disproved, you are screwed (e.g., saying someone needs 24hr SNF care, and a PI records the person driving to a concert, your opinion is now screwed).
3) Your personal life. Anything legal will be found first (e.g., your criminal history/DUIs, the facts from your divorce, etc). Then your publications. Then things from social media, tax records, voter registration, etc. That's before they get aggressive.

There is a strange ratio to the above. If you are dq'ed after testifying 100 times, there is limited effect on your career (e.g., one of the preeminent forensic psychiatrists has admitted errors in recall, and said that he changed his mind about a subject after learning more; the neuropsychologist in Vincent Gigante's trial, etc). If you are dq'ed in your first 2 cases, you'll probably won't get hired again.

This is good info. I have heard of some people getting in hot water when they favor their own research when it is poorly supported, as well.

Track record and personal life are also great for topics of discussion, too - like talking through what opinions the legal system might misunderstand as contradictory when they're really contextual.

Anecdotally, what I'm finding in case law is most often arising in causal opinions or those that kind of get at ultimate opinions. Like, I think we tend to think methodology is more prone to be scrutinized, a la Daubert and Frye. I couldn't find much case law excluding people if they use untested methods. Instead I found a lot more concern related to stepping outside of a person's scope when it comes to causal opinions. Some neuropsych stuff about whether we as a field are even equipped to make those opinions in the first place, which is interesting as well.