---
title: "Psychiatry Experts’ Opinions on Causation and Permanency Admitted"
meta:
  "og:description": "The psychiatry experts employed a reliable methodology, commonly accepted in the psychiatric community, to opine on the symptoms of PTSD"
  "og:title": "Psychiatry Experts’ Opinions on Causation and Permanency Admitted"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "The psychiatry experts employed a reliable methodology, commonly accepted in the psychiatric community, to opine on the symptoms of PTSD"
---

# Psychiatry Experts’ Opinions on Causation and Permanency Admitted

Posted on July 4, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

This action arises from the pled sexual assault of Plaintiff Margaret Betts by a massage therapist during an in-room massage appointment at Sixty LES, a hotel owned and managed by Defendants Sixty Lower East Side, LLC, Sixty Hotels, LLC, and Sixty Hotel Manager, LLC.

Plaintiff has proffered two expert witnesses, Dr. [Steven A. Fayer](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Steven-Fayer/1518227) and Dr. [Joseph Otonichar](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Otonichar/1565508), to testify at trial that the Plaintiff’s assault resulted in lasting psychological injuries, including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Defendants, meanwhile, have proposed to offer one expert witness, Dr. [Julie C. Medlin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Julie-Medlin/1519303), to testify at trial that the Plaintiff’s assault did not significantly impact her pre-existing psychological symptoms.

The parties have each filed motions in limine seeking to preclude the opposing party’s proposed expert witnesses from testifying at trial.

## **Psychiatry Expert Witnesses**

Dr. [Steven Alan Fayer](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Steven-Fayer/1518227) is an associate professor of psychiatry at The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital and an attending physician at The Mount Sinai Hospital. He received his M.D. from Georgetown School of Medicine and completed his residency in psychiatry at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. He is certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

[Get the full story on challenges to Steven A. Fayer’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1518227&amp;pId=3).

Dr. [Joseph Otonichar](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Joseph-Otonichar/1565508) is a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, the medical director of Mental Health at NYC-HHC Correctional Health Services, and a co-partner at Gotham Forensics. He received a master’s degree in biology from Cleveland State University, and he subsequently received his D.O. from Midwestern University — Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine. He is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in forensic psychiatry and is a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in Psychiatry.

[Want to know more about the challenges Joseph Otonichar has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1565508&amp;pId=3).

## **Psychology Expert Witness**

Dr. [Julie Christine Medlin](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Julie-Medlin/1519303) is a licensed psychologist and the Director of the Medlin Treatment Center in Marietta, Georgia. She obtained her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Harvard University, and her master’s and doctoral degrees in clinical psychology from the University of Florida. Medlin specializes in assessments and conducts psychological, sexual trauma, psychosexual, and forensic evaluations.

[Discover more cases with Julie C. Medlin as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1519303&amp;pId=3).

## **Discussion by the Court**

### **Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Medlin**

Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Medlin’s testimony on the grounds that she: (i) lacked the qualifications to serve as an expert in this case; (ii) is not licensed to practice psychology in New York; and (iii) employed tests and techniques in her examination that were not subject to peer review and have not gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

#### **Julie C. Medlin**

To begin with, Medlin’s curriculum vitae stated that she founded a private, outpatient counseling center more than twenty-five years ago to offer “specialized evaluation and treatment for sexual and physical trauma victims” and conduct “forensic and clinical evaluations of alleged or confirmed sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, including in criminal and civil cases.” The Court found that such work experience is directly relevant to the issues in this action.

Moreover, Medlin’s curriculum vitae stated that she is licensed with PSYPACT, an interstate organization that allows licensed psychologists to practice telepsychology and conduct temporary, in-person sessions across state boundaries. Medlin conducted her evaluation of Plaintiff in New Jersey, which is a participant in PSYPACT.

Medlin conducted the following psychological tests on Plaintiff: the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI); Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3); Trauma Symptom Inventory, 2nd Edition (TSI-2); and Inventory of Problems (IOP-29).

Although Plaintiff claimed that the validity of each test is disputed, Plaintiff’s motion failed to present sufficient evidence to support this assertion. Rather, a brief internet search suggested that, although some instability is inherent in any tests that involve self-reporting, the tests employed by Medlin were widely used and generally considered to be reliable, including for diagnosing PTSD.

Finally, Plaintiff requested that Medlin be precluded from testifying about certain commentary concerning Plaintiff’s counsel that is contained in her report. While Medlin’s report certainly suggested that Plaintiff’s counsel exhibited unprofessional behavior during both of Medlin’s examinations of Plaintiff, at this stage the Court agreed that the admission of such information is not directly relevant to the issues to be presented at trial.

### **Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the **Opinions** of Fayer and Otonichar**

Defendants filed a motion to bar the admission of testimony by Fayer and Otonichar under _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ or, alternatively, requested that the Court order a _Daubert_ hearing to determine the reliability of their testimony.

#### **Joseph Otonichar**

First, the Defendants contended that Otonichar’s credentials “simply do not meet the standard” set forth in [Rule 702(a)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). With Otonichar’s advanced education in psychiatry and his work experience, including as Medical Director of Mental Health at NYC-HHC Correctional Health Services and Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine, the Court disagreed.

The Defendants further asserted that Otonichar’s methodology was unsupportable, claiming that he conducted two Zoom interviews of the Plaintiff in January and February 2024 lasting a combined total of four hours and “has not spoken to or engaged in any conversation” with the Plaintiff since that time. However, in preparing his written report, Otonichar reviewed: (i) psychiatric treatment records of Dr. Robert A. Reff, M.D. between July 2016 and January 2024; (ii) psychiatric treatment records of Dr. Wilson between August 2016 and January 2024; (iii) the psychiatric examination report of Fayer dated November 9, 2021; (iv) testimony and exhibits from the deposition of plaintiff on January 8, 2021; and (v) the pleadings and procedural filings in this action.

Finally, the Defendants asserted that Otonichar’s report contains “no opinion on the issues of causation or permanency,” and that he must be precluded from offering opinions to the jury on those issues. The Court disagreed because Otonichar clearly addressed both causation and permanency in his report. Specifically, he stated that Plaintiff experienced a “new type of anxiety” as a result of the assault, which took the form of a “fear of intimacy and romantic relationships.”

#### **Steven A. Fayer**

Next, Defendants contended that Fayer must also be precluded from testifying at trial, asserting that his proposed testimony did not meet the requirements of Rule 702(b-d).

First, Defendants asserted that Fayer’s methodology was insufficient, contending that he: (i) interviewed Plaintiff for a total of four hours via Zoom on September 29, 2021 and October 20, 2021, and has had no further contact with Plaintiff or reviewed any additional medical records since that call; (ii) did not review medical records from Plaintiff’s primary treating psychologist after December 15, 2020 or records from Plaintiff’s primary treating psychiatrist covering the four treatment sessions immediately preceding the assault, and did not review the records of Plaintiff’s second treating psychiatrist, Dr. Wilson, or her other medical providers; and (iii) did not administer any tests in evaluating Plaintiff’s psychological condition. However, a review of Fayer’s report indicated that he based his diagnosis of Plaintiff’s mental health conditions on his own examinations of Plaintiff and a review of her psychiatric treatment records with Robert Reff.

Defendants further argued that Fayer’s expert report contained “no opinion on the issues of causation or permanency,” and that he must be precluded from offering opinions to the jury on those issues. However, Fayer stated that, as a result of the assault, Plaintiff developed “trauma-induced anxiety with features of posttraumatic stress” including “flashbacks, dreams, negative thoughts, avoidance, and isolation.” As a result, the Court held that Fayer’s report adequately addressed both causation and permanency.

#### **Rule 403**

Finally, Defendants contended that the testimony of Fayer and Otonichar should be precluded or limited as duplicative under [Rule 403](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403#:~:text=The%20court%20may%20exclude%20relevant,or%20needlessly%20presenting%20cumulative%20evidence.), asserting that both witnesses “will present predominantly duplicative testimony.”

Because the two experts examined Plaintiff three years and five years after the assault, respectively, and are expected to testify regarding their separate conclusions with respect to Plaintiff’s psychological condition at each point in time, the Court held that the proposed testimony is neither cumulative nor duplicative.

## **Held**

The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert, Dr. Julie C. Medlin as well as the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts, Dr. Steven A. Fayer and Dr. Joseph Otonichar.

## **Key Takeaways:**

- Medlin offers specialized evaluation and treatment for sexual and physical trauma victims. Her work experience is directly relevant to the issues in this action. Moreover, even if it were not, an expert’s training need not narrowly match the point of dispute in the case.

- Fayer’s opinion is grounded in a reliable methodology commonly accepted in the psychiatric community. Any concerns regarding the depth or form of his evaluation goes to the weight of his testimony, rather than its admissibility, and may be addressed on cross-examination.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychiatry-experts-opinions-on-causation-and-permanency-admitted/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychiatry-experts-opinions-on-causation-and-permanency-admitted/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychiatry-experts-opinions-on-causation-and-permanency-admitted/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychiatry-experts-opinions-on-causation-and-permanency-admitted/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/psychiatry-experts-opinions-on-causation-and-permanency-admitted/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)