Psychiatry Expert's Diagnosis Opinion Admitted

Plaintiff Jeffrey Little is a Los Angeles County lifeguard who holds the religious belief that same-sex sexual activity is morally wrong and dishonors God. In 2023, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a motion, EA-231, requiring that the Progress Pride Flag ("PPF") be flown at all Fire Department flagpoles during the month of June. Little requested a religious accommodation from Defendants, asking that he be exempt from flying the PPF as part of his job responsibilities. On June 19, 2023, Little was informed that he could be assigned to an area where he would not be responsible for flying the PPF.

On June 21, 2023, Little arrived at his shift to see the PPFs flying. He personally lowered the PPFs. Little's supervisor visited Little's worksite and met privately with Little to discuss the lowering of the PPFs. The following day, Little was informed that he was subject to an internal investigation for lowering the PPFs. Little informed his supervisor that he needed to leave his shift because he was sick, and used his sick time for his remaining shifts in June 2023. Additionally, Defendants suspended Little from his role on the Background Investigation Unit ("BIU"), and conducted an investigation into Little. As a result of the investigation, Little was suspended for 15 days without pay for lowering the PPFs.

Little initiated this action on May 24, 2024. He brings, among other claims, failure-to-accommodate claims, in which he alleges that the Fire Department improperly expected Little to comply with EA-231 despite Little's expressed religious beliefs, resulting in an investigation, his suspension, hostile personal attacks, and removal from the BIU, as well as threatened future adverse employment action.

Defendants sought to exclude the opinions of two of Little's experts: (1) Mr. Paul Zimmer, who was retained to opine on Little's economic damages; and (2) Dr. Scott C. Matthews, Little's psychiatric expert.

Accounting Expert Witness

Paul Augustine Zimmer specializes in financial analysis for forensic accounting, business damages and lost profits, personal injury and wrongful death, professional malpractice, employment matters, trust and estate issues, family law, and the valuation of ongoing business concerns.

Zimmer has calculated economic damages in over 1,500 matters involving forensic accounting, personal injury, wrongful death, professional malpractice, employment (including wrongful termination, discrimination, and wage and hour disputes), trust accounting, and business disputes across Alameda, San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Imperial counties in California.

Want to know more about the challenges Paul Zimmer has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Psychiatry Expert Witness

Scott Christian Matthews is a psychiatrist with more than two decades on the faculty of the University of California, San Diego and the San Diego VA, whose clinical and forensic work centers on trauma.

Gain a comprehensive understanding of Scott Matthews's qualifications and casework history with his Expert Witness Profile report.

Discussion by the Court

A. Motion to Exclude Zimmer's Opinions

Paul Zimmer is a certified public accountant, who was retained by Little to opine as to Little's alleged economic damages. Zimmer calculated (1) Little's lost vacation and sick time; and (2) Little's lost overtime purportedly due to his suspension from the BIU. Defendants sought to exclude (1) Zimmer's calculation as to Little's lost sick and vacation time; (2) Zimmer's opinion that Little's lost sick and vacation time was caused by "the incident"; (3) Zimmer's calculation as to Little's lost overtime.

1. Lost Vacation and Sick Time

To calculate Little's lost vacation and sick time, Zimmer analyzed Little's paystubs from the period of June 18, 2023 to September 15, 2023. Adding up the vacation time and sick time Little took during this period, Zimmer concluded that Little used $27,783 in vacation and sick time benefits. Zimmer acknowledged that his analysis of the sick and vacation benefits lost was "simple" and consisted of "simple arithmetic."

Defendants argued that, because he used only "simple arithmetic," Zimmer employed no expert analysis to calculate Little's sick and vacation time losses, and therefore his opinion is not based on his special expertise and not helpful to the jury. As to this specific opinion, the Court agreed with Defendants. It does not appear as if Zimmer relied on any of his expertise in adding up the benefits reflected in Little's paystubs. His opinion is thus inadmissible under Rule 702.

Accordingly, the motion to exclude Zimmer's opinion on lost vacation and sick time was granted. As such, Zimmer's opinion that Little's lost sick and vacation time was caused by "the incident," which Little maintained should be admissible to explain the basis for his lost vacation and sick time calculations, is also inadmissible, and the motion to exclude this opinion is granted.

2. Lost Overtime

Zimmer additionally estimated Little's lost overtime earnings as a result of his suspension from the BIU from June 2023 to March 2026. Zimmer calculated Little's total lost overtime earnings to be $76,665. Zimmer employed a "but-for" methodology in calculating lost overtime, which consisted of "(1) computing average annualized overtime from roughly 27 months of presuspension paystubs (March 2021 to June 2023); (2) computing the same metric from approximately 30 months of post-suspension paystubs (July 2023 to December 2025); (3) subtracting the latter from the former to identify the BIU-driven differential ($28,500 per year); and (4) multiplying by the suspension period (2.69 years) to reach $76,665."

Regarding lost overtime, Defendants made the same argument as they did regarding sick and vacation time: that Zimmer's opinion is not helpful to the jury and is not based on special expertise. This time, the Court disagreed with Defendants. Zimmer's analysis calculates the overtime earned by Little prior to his BIU suspension, and uses that calculation to predict what Little would have earned had he not been suspended from the BIU. In so doing, Zimmer relied on past data to make predictions about Little's projected earnings, which is something a jury cannot easily do. Other courts have endorsed such a methodology as being helpful to the jury.

Further, Defendants argued that in forming his opinion on lost overtime, Zimmer's underlying assumptions were flawed, and that he did not employ or explain any reliable methods to address that deficiency. Specifically, according to Defendants, Zimmer's opinion rests on two improper assumptions: (1) that that BIU work is consistent; and (2) that the sole change in Little's overtime hours from the pre-June 2023 period to the post-June 2023 period was his lack of BIU work after June 2023.

Defendants' challenges to Zimmer's assumptions go to the weight of Zimmer's testimony, not admissibility. Defendants asserted that BIU work has no "guaranteed monthly or annual rate," and suggest that "perhaps Zimmer could have performed more advanced statistical or regression analysis on Plaintiff's paystubs to show that any month-to-month variance of BIU work roughly balances out over time." Such a critique may be persuasive to a jury, but falls short of showing that Zimmer's calculations about BIU overtime are based on "unreliable nonsense."

Defendants further pointed out that Little was entitled to overtime as a board member of the Los Angeles County Lifeguard Association ("LACoLA"), and argued that Zimmer failed to consider whether Little's overtime pay resulted from his LACoLA work as opposed to his BIU work. But again, such an argument goes to the weight of Zimmer's opinion, especially because Defendants have made no showing that Little actually received overtime pay from LACoLA.

In sum, the Defendants' motion to exclude Zimmer's opinions is granted in part and denied in part. The Court granted the motion as to Zimmer's opinion regarding lost sick and vacation time benefits, but denied the motion as to Zimmer's opinion regarding lost overtime benefits.

B. Motion to Exclude Matthews' Opinion

Dr. Scott Matthews is Little's psychiatric expert. Matthews conducted a three-hour medical examination of Little on December 18, 2025, via Zoom. During Matthews' Zoom examination with Little, he evaluated Little using three scales: the PTSD Checklist, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. In addition, Matthews reviewed reports by other physicians who have treated or evaluated Little since June 2023.

Matthews intends to offer two opinions in the present case: (1) that Little suffers from chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, which is attributable to the events of June 2023 (the "Diagnosis Opinion"); and (2) that Little should take medication and/or receive therapy for his condition (the "Treatment Opinion").

1. Diagnosis Opinion

Defendants argued that Matthews' "Diagnosis Opinion" should be excluded because it is unreliable, as he (1) fails to consider other physicians' opinions, and (2) fails to consider possible alternative causes of Little's symptoms.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendants' first argument. Matthews' report shows that he did review and consider the opinions of other physicians who treated Little prior to forming his "Diagnosis Opinion." After reviewing Little's past medical history and speaking to Little for three hours, Matthews diagnosed Little with a chronic adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety and depression.

Defendants' attempts to point out inconsistencies go to weight, not admissibility. Defendants argued that Matthews' December 2025 diagnosis of "chronic adjustment disorder" is inconsistent with some of the other providers' observations that Little's symptoms were ameliorating and in remission. But it does not appear that Matthews failed to consider those providers' opinions; rather, he asserted that, "with the benefit of hindsight," along with his observations that those symptoms were persisting, he formed his "Diagnosis Opinion."

Defendants next argued that Matthews failed to consider an alternative cause for Little's condition: litigation stress. Matthews acknowledged that, in forming his "Diagnosis Opinion," he was not aware that Little sat for an all-day deposition less than a week before Matthews met with Little.

Matthews opined in his supplemental report that litigation stress would not explain some of Little's symptoms, such as hypervigilance, intrusive thoughts, and "avoidance of reminders of the events that occurred in June 2023." The Court thus construes litigation stress to be a possible alternative cause which Defendants may highlight at trial, but not one sufficiently obvious to warrant exclusion.

2. Treatment Opinion

Defendants further argued that Matthews' "Treatment Opinion" that Little should take "medication and/or receive therapy for his condition" is "unmoored from the facts" and "flies in the face of Plaintiff's own medical history."

Specifically, Defendants asserted that Little's past medical records show that he "voluntarily stopped taking medication and declined to seek out therapy." Defendants additionally pointed out that Stalberg "concluded that Plaintiff would require only two months of therapy and did not need medication at all."

As discussed above, although Matthews may have reached a different conclusion than other medical providers, he has shown that he reviewed their findings. Moreover, contrary to Defendants' arguments, Matthews had a basis for recommending medication and therapy, as he discussed Little's past experiences with therapy and medication with Little.

Held

• The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude the opinions of Paul Zimmer.

• The Court denied the motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Scott Matthews.

Key Takeaway

The Court is not persuaded that litigation stress is a sufficiently "obvious" potential alternative cause of Little's chronic adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety to render his testimony inadmissible.

Case Details: