Psychiatry Expert’s Testimony Not Fully Excluded Despite His Reliance on a Previous Edition of the DSM
Posted on March 12, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
In a recent Michigan case involving allegations of sexual abuse against visually impaired minors in public schools, the admissibility of expert psychiatric testimony became a focal point. Specifically, the Court grappled with challenges to Dr. Gerald Shiener‘s expertise and methodology.
Plaintiffs presented Shiener, a psychiatrist, to testify on the “causation and damages” related to the children’s psychiatric issues stemming from the alleged abuse. However, Defendants argued that Shiener lacked sufficient expertise in child psychiatry, given the plaintiffs’ ages at the time of the incidents and evaluations. Consequently, they sought to exclude his testimony.
Psychiatry Expert Witness
Dr. Gerald A. Shiener is a board-certified psychiatrist with over four decades of clinical experience, specializing in forensic psychiatry, addiction psychiatry, geriatric psychiatry, and psychosomatic medicine.
Shiener earned his Doctor of Medicine degree from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. He completed his residency in psychiatry at Sinai Hospital of Detroit. His training included inpatient psychiatry, emergency psychiatry, adolescent psychiatry, and consultation-liaison psychiatry. He also completed an honorary clinical assistantship at London Hospital Medical College under Professor Desmond Pond.
Discussion by the Court
Qualifications:
Firstly, Plaintiffs countered that Shiener’s extensive experience, including his role as Chief of Psychiatry at a trauma center where he treated sexually abused children, his residency training in child psychiatry, and his appointment to a juvenile mental health advisory committee, qualified him to opine on the matter. Conversely, Defendants dismissed this experience, arguing that his residency training was decades old and his overall practice lacked a focus on forensic child psychiatry. In essence, the Defendants primarily argued that Shiener lacked the specific expertise required to testify on the psychiatric impact on child victims of sexual abuse. They contended that his experience in child psychiatry was limited, particularly in forensic settings, and that his relevant training was outdated. Thus, they challenged his credentials, asserting that he was not a sufficiently qualified “child psychiatrist.”
Nevertheless, the Court ruled that it was not necessary for Shiener to have spent the majority of his time focused on child psychiatry in order to offer relevant opinions. Indeed, Shiener has received formal training in the psychiatric treatment of minors, and in addition, he has experience treating this population, including with respect to sexual abuse. Therefore, the initial objection based on a lack of child psychiatry expertise was largely dismissed.
Methodology:
Furthermore, Defendants raised concerns about Shiener’s methodology. They alleged he: failed to adequately review medical and school records, over-relied on maternal reports, used outdated assessment approaches, specifically the multi-axial assessment approach that was eliminated from the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, failed to rule out alternative causes, provided speculative opinions lacking data, and failed to cite reliable scientific literature.
Conversely, the Plaintiffs defended Shiener’s methodology, arguing that he had utilized a variety of sources, including depositions, police reports, and his own evaluations. They also argued that reliance on the DSM-IV was acceptable, as it closely approximated the DSM-V in relevant areas, and that his clinical experience allowed him to make his professional judgements. Additionally, they provided an affidavit from Shiener, that backed up his methods, and reasoning.
Reliability:
More importantly, the Court addressed the reliability of Shiener’s methods. Specifically, Defendants criticized his reliance on the DSM-IV, which has been superseded by the DSM-V. However, the Court found that while the DSM-V is the current version, the DSM-IV was sufficient for diagnosis of PTSD in this case, because there is significant overlap between the two versions. Thus, the diagnosis of PTSD was admissible. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs argued that Shiener’s experience, allowed him to form his opinions, and that the DSM-IV was sufficient for the diagnosis of PTSD.
Multi-Axial Assessment:
However, the Court prohibited Shiener from using the DSM-IV’s multi-axial assessment approach, which was phased out in the DSM-V. Because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the reliability of this outdated system, the Court deemed it inadmissible.
Causation and Prognosis:
Defendants also objected to Shiener’s opinion that Plaintiffs’ psychiatric diagnoses arose from sexual abuse, arguing that his opinions on this issue did not address any “other external circumstances,” in addition to being conclusory and unsupported.
The Court excluded Shiener’s opinions on causation, prognosis, and treatment. Namely, his statements regarding the cause of the Plaintiffs’ conditions were deemed conclusory and lacked adequate explanation. Similarly, his opinions on prognosis and treatment lacked sufficient support from scientific literature. Consequently, these aspects of his testimony were deemed inadmissible.
While acknowledging some oversights, the Court noted that Shiener did utilize various sources, including depositions, police reports, educational records, and his own evaluations. Additionally, the Court recognized that experts conducting their own evaluations aren’t always required to review all medical records.
Held
In conclusion, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to strike Dr. Gerald Shiener’s testimony. His diagnoses, particularly of PTSD, were deemed admissible, while his multi-axial assessments, causation opinions, prognosis, and treatment recommendations were excluded.
Key Takeaways:
- Even with broad psychiatric qualifications, specific expertise relevant to the case (e.g., child psychiatry in cases involving child victims) can be challenged.
- Outdated methodologies (like the DSM-IV’s multi-axial assessment, a feature of the DSM-IV that was phased out in the DSM-V) can be grounds for excluding expert testimony.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Petty Et Al V. Garden City Public Schools Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 5:21cv11328 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Michigan Eastern |
| Order Date: | March 10, 2025 |
