Three’s A Crowd

Esteemed forensic psychiatrist Robert Simon, MD, published a timeless article several years ago entitled “Three’s A Crowd.” It addresses the recurring problem of (usually) plaintiff attorneys seeking to be present in the room during the defense forensic psychiatric evaluation of their client and the potentially chilling and distorting effects upon the examination that such presence […]

Doyle v. Caldwell (California Sixth Appellate Court)

Doyle v Caldwell Balancing the discovery rights of the Defendant against the privacy rights of the Plaintiff, California’s Sixth Appellate Court ruled, in an employment law suit, that the Defendant, Caldwell, could not compel the Plaintiff, Cindy Doyle, to undergo a forensic psychiatric independent medical examination (even thought she put her mental status at issue) […]

Expert Witness Disclosure – Proposed Changes to Federal Rule 26

There are proposed significant changes to the disclosure requirement features of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26. These changes will extend work product immunity.Congress makes changes to the widely endorsed Aproposal awaiting Supreme Court approval on May 1, 2010, as of December 1, 2010 Experts will no longer be required to disclose draft versions of their FRCP 26(a)(2) Reports. Furthermore they will no longer be required to disclose communication including electronic communication between the expert and the retaining attorney

On Wearing 2 Hats

This is a brief discussion of the complications that can arise when a treating clinician agrees to become the “independent expert” in his patient’s litigation.

Overcoming Obstacles to the Independent Examination of Emotional Damages Defense

Comment Spring 2004 by Saul Rosenberg, PhD & Mark Levy, MD Download OvercomingObstacles.pdf