---
title: "The Psychiatry Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Absence of Sexual Trauma"
meta:
  "og:description": "The psychiatry expert was allowed to offer opinions on diagnosis and etiology based on the symptoms reported by Plaintiff"
  "og:title": "The Psychiatry Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Absence of Sexual Trauma"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "The psychiatry expert was allowed to offer opinions on diagnosis and etiology based on the symptoms reported by Plaintiff"
---

# The Psychiatry Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Absence of Sexual Trauma

Posted on October 21, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

Defendant Wendy’s International, LLC operates a multinational fast food restaurant chain specializing in hamburgers and French fries. M.B. was a minor female employee of a Wendy’s restaurant in Lutz, Florida. M.B. alleged that from September until December 2023, she was subjected to sexual harassment at Wendy’s by Jamaya Clemmons, a 25-year-old male Wendy’s employee. She testified in deposition to several non-consensual sexual encounters with Clemmons at work.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting claims for sexual harassment and hostile work environment. According to defense expert [Eric M. Kaplan](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Eric-Kaplan/1536171), M.D., a psychiatrist, Plaintiff did not suffer from PTSD arising from her experience with Clemmons at Wendy’s.

Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Kaplan’s opinions, arguing that he is unqualified to offer them and that his testimony failed the requirements for expert testimony imposed by [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.). Kaplan opined that she suffered from other conditions caused by factors that largely pre-date her employment at Wendy’s. 

## **Psychiatry Expert Witness**

[Eric Michael Kaplan](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Eric-Kaplan/1536171), M.D.  is a board-certified psychiatrist with 35 years of experience treating adults and adolescents with a variety of conditions.

Kaplan has worked as a forensic psychiatrist for over 25 years, and has been board certified by the American College of Forensic Examiners and American Board of Forensic Medicine for almost 30 years.

[Want to know more about the challenges Eric Kaplan has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1536171&amp;pId=3).

## **Discussion by the Court**

Plaintiff argued that Kaplan is a general and forensic psychiatrist who is not “subspecialty trained” in adolescent or child psychiatry and has only limited experience in his clinical practice with adolescents who have suffered sexual trauma. Plaintiff further argued that Kaplan is unqualified to administer a psychological test he used as part of his evaluation of Plaintiff, and that his testing methods were unreliable.

However, the Court found that Kaplan is sufficiently qualified and that his approach was sufficiently reliable to be admitted under [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.).

Kaplan based his opinions on an examination of Plaintiff, including but not limited to an interview and psychological testing, and on his medical and psychiatric training and 35 of years of experience. In addition, he reviewed medical and other records, including records relating to previous treatment for emotional problems, and he reviewed depositions of Plaintiff, Clemmons, and Plaintiff’s parents. Moreover, he compared Plaintiff’s information to the diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM, a standard reference work published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Plaintiff’s motion did not argue that Kaplan’s overall methodology was inappropriate. Instead, Plaintiff offered specific criticisms of how Kaplan performed various aspects of the evaluation and the conclusions he reached. These criticisms go to the weight to be accorded to Kaplan’s testimony, not its admissibility.

The Court also found that, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Kaplan was sufficiently qualified to administer the MMPI-2-RF psychological test he gave Plaintiff. Scoring such tests is a matter typically within the expertise of psychologists rather than psychiatrists, but Kaplan has had training in using such tests and he did not score the results himself but sent them to the test’s creator for scoring and interpretation.

## **Held**

The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert Eric Kaplan.

## **Key Takeaway**:

While expert qualifications in a general area do not necessarily qualify an expert to offer any specific opinion within the area, by the same token, specific training or certification in a particular subspecialty area (such as, here, adolescent psychiatry) is not necessarily required to offer opinions in that area.

## **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/the-psychiatry-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-absence-of-sexual-trauma/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/the-psychiatry-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-absence-of-sexual-trauma/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/the-psychiatry-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-absence-of-sexual-trauma/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/the-psychiatry-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-absence-of-sexual-trauma/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/the-psychiatry-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-absence-of-sexual-trauma/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)