---
title: "Testimony on Medication Effects and Interactions Admitted in Mental Health Malpractice Case"
meta:
  "og:description": "Learn how the Court evaluated expert witness reliability and relevance in a mental health malpractice case"
  "og:title": "Testimony on Medication Effects and Interactions Admitted in Mental Health Malpractice Case"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Learn how the Court evaluated expert witness reliability and relevance in a mental health malpractice case"
---

# Testimony on Medication Effects and Interactions Admitted in Mental Health Malpractice Case

Posted on March 4, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

Sabelita Hawkins experienced a psychotic episode in 2011, leading to hospitalization and subsequent treatment at the Puget Sound Veterans Hospital. She alleges that despite informing Dr. Daniel Doan that her prescribed medication was ineffective, no changes were made to her treatment. Later, Dr. Carl Jensen diagnosed her with PTSD but also did not modify her care. A second psychotic episode resulted in Hawkins attacking her mother and facing arrest.

The Government retained [Russell Vandenbelt, M.D.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Russell-Vandenbelt/1529189), a licensed psychiatrist, and [Michael Kovar, M.D.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Michael-Kovar/1533864), a licensed family medicine physician, as experts to opine on Doan’s and Jensen’s treatment of Hawkins. Hawkins sought to exclude both Vandenbelt’s and Kovar’s testimony on the basis that their opinions are neither reliable nor relevant to Hawkins’ allegations. 

## **Psychiatry Expert Witness**

[Russell Vandenbelt](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Russell-Vandenbelt/1529189) specializes in behavioral medicine, and has over three decades of clinical experience as a licensed psychiatrist. He is also a “certified specialist” in addiction medicine, serves as a psychiatric consultant to medical, nursing, and pharmacy boards in Washington, and previously worked as a staff physician “managing patient withdrawal syndromes from opiates, alcohol, stimulants, and sedative-hypnotics.”

[Get the full story on challenges to Russell Vandenbelt’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1529189) 

## **Family Medicine Expert Witness**

[Michael Kovar](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Michael-Kovar/1533864) is a family medicine physician with clinical interests in behavioral medicine. He has served as a board-certified family medicine physician and an assistant clinical professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

[Want to know more about the challenges Michael Kovar has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1533864)

## **Discussion by the Court**

### **Russell Vandenbelt**

The Government retained Vandenbelt to conduct a “review of records regarding the adequacy of mental health treatment provided to Hawkins” and to “opine on the standard of care for Hawkins’ psychiatrist, Carl Jensen.”

Hawkins contended that Vandenbelt’s report (1) did not reflect his experience and knowledge (2) did not sufficiently explain his methodology; and (3) was not supported by “sufficient facts and data” or “medical analysis.”

#### **_Reliability of Standard of Care Testimony_**

 Vandenbelt’s testimony reflects his specialized experience in “diagnosing, assessing, and treating” patients “with medication and psychotherapy.”

The Court rejected the argument that he lacked the knowledge to discuss medication effects and interactions, given his experience in addiction medicine.

In conclusion, the Court found Vandenbelt’s testimony on the standard of care to be reliable.

#### _**Methodology**_

The Court determined that Vandenbelt’s report sufficiently explained his methodology because he reviewed Doan’s and Jensen’s treatment decisions, applied his understanding of standard of care principles to the facts in the records, and used this information collectively to form his opinion that “Doan and Jensen provided adequate and appropriate treatment” of Hawkins’ symptoms based on the information they had at the time of treatment.

 In deciding whether to exclude Vandenbelt’s testimony before trial, the Court “is not tasked with deciding whether he is right or wrong” and may “not exclude his opinions merely because they are impeachable.”

_Daubert_ requires only that Vandenbelt’s testimony has “a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline.” A psychiatry expert may testify about the adequacy of treatment a patient received based on a review of that patient’s past medical records.

#### _**Relevance**_

Hawkins also sought to exclude Vandenbelt’s testimony on relevance grounds, asserting that his testimony has “no clear connection” to her medical malpractice allegations.

In this case, the Defendants’ adherence to the standard of care is a necessary element of Hawkins’s medical malpractice claim, and therefore has a “valid connection” to this case.

The Court found Vandenbelt’s testimony on the standard of care relevant, as it directly addressed a key element of Hawkins’ malpractice claim.

#### _**Causation**_

Vandenbelt’s report opines on whether Doan and Jensen “acted inappropriately or below the standard of care” in treating Hawkins. However, Vandenbelt did not provide any opinion on causation.

To the extent that the Government sought to call Vandenbelt to testify about the _cause_ of Hawkins’ second psychotic episode, however, the Court excluded that causation testimony. The Court reinforced that an expert cannot testify to matters outside their report.

### **Michael Kovar**

The Government intended to introduce Kovar’s testimony that Doan “met the standard of care” in treating Hawkins and that Doan’s “actions neither caused nor could have prevented” Hawkins’ subsequent attack on her mother. 

Hawkins sought to exclude Kovar’s testimony for the same reasons she sought to exclude Vandenbelt’s testimony. 

#### _**Qualifications**_

The government countered that Kovar has over 28 years of clinical experience as a family medicine practitioner. Kovar’s report reflects his specialized experience serving as a board-certified family medicine physician, an assistant clinical professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and his clinical interests in behavioral medicine.

The Court agreed, noting that Kovar’s experience allowed him to analyze whether Doan’s treatment met the standard of care for a family medicine physician.

Hawkins argued that Kovar lacked the expertise to discuss the effects of oxycodone, alcohol, and antibiotics on her mental state. But as a family medicine physician with clinical interests in behavioral medicine, Kovar has knowledge and experience treating adults with medications. Kovar is therefore qualified to testify about medication effects and interactions.

#### _**Methodology**_

Hawkins also argued that Kovar’s report “did not contain an explanation of the methodology” he used to develop his opinion and “provided [only] a blanket opinion without further medical analysis.” 

Kovar’s report explained, however, that he reviewed Hawkins’ complaint and the “pertinent medical records available to Doan at the time of Hawkins’ ” treatment with Doan. Kovar then reviewed Doan’s treatment decisions, applied his understanding of standard of care principles to the facts in the records.

The Court determined that Kovar’s “specialized knowledge and experience can serve as the requisite ‘facts or data’ on which he renders an opinion.” While Hawkins disagrees with Kovar’s conclusions, asserting that they are based on “misstated facts,” the Court may “not exclude Kovar’s opinions merely because they are impeachable.” 

#### _**Relevance**_

Hawkins also argued that Kovar’s testimony has “no clear connection” to her medical malpractice allegations. The Court disagreed, stating that Kovar’s opinions on the standard of care and causation were directly relevant to the necessary elements of Hawkins’ claim.

Doan’s adherence to the standard of care and the causal link between his alleged negligence and Hawkins’ injuries are necessary elements of Hawkins’ medical malpractice claim. 

Hawkins may test the expert witness’ credibility by cross-examining them about their methodology, sources, and conclusions at trial.

## **Held**

The Court denied Hawkins’ motions to exclude Russell Vandenbelt and Michael Kovar.

## **Key Takeaway:**

Hawkins V. United States highlights the critical role of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases and the court’s rigorous application of _Daubert_ standards. The court’s decision underscores the importance of qualified experts, reliable methodologies, and relevant testimony. This case provides valuable insights for legal professionals and anyone interested in the intersection of law and medicine.

## **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/testimony-on-medication-effects-and-interactions-admitted-in-mental-health-malpractice-case/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/testimony-on-medication-effects-and-interactions-admitted-in-mental-health-malpractice-case/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/testimony-on-medication-effects-and-interactions-admitted-in-mental-health-malpractice-case/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/testimony-on-medication-effects-and-interactions-admitted-in-mental-health-malpractice-case/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/testimony-on-medication-effects-and-interactions-admitted-in-mental-health-malpractice-case/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)