U.S. | Houston, Texas HQ
Multi-Plaintiff &
Mass-Tort
By Sanjay Adhia, M.D.
Multi-Plaintiff and Mass Tort Cases
The multi-plaintiff case is unique in civil litigation. I have served as an Expert Witness in several such cases. I find each plaintiff responds to an alleged event differently and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As a psychiatrist, I am alert to psychological resiliency and psychiatric conditions that might be related to the case at hand.
Multi-plaintiff cases are not always class action lawsuits, though they can be. And contrary to popular belief, a multi-plaintiff case doesn’t always involve a public health disaster and a corporate defendant, though they can. Here are two very different types of multi-plaintiff cases on which I worked.
Two Cases
Chemical exposure is alleged to cause cancer with potential associated psychiatric illness. In this toxic tort, multiple plaintiffs claimed their risk of cancer was related to exposure to a chemical spill.
Multiple plaintiffs allege sexual assault. In this second case, three women accused a single defendant of serial sexual assault using “date rape drugs.”
Toxic Tort
This case involved a chemical exposure that may have caused late-onset cancers. I was retained by counsel for 2 of the 3 plaintiffs.
It was part of a BELO series (Back End Litigation Option). One plaintiff I examined developed anxiety symptoms from an ENT (ear, nose, and throat) cancer.
After my independent medical evaluation (IME) and review of records, I diagnosed one plaintiff with Anxiety Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition.
This condition includes symptoms of intense anxiety or panic that are directly caused by a physical illness. Approximately 10% to 29% of individuals with head and neck cancer experience symptoms of anxiety.[1] This diagnosis established a causal link between the chemical exposure and the anxiety—if, in fact, the spill caused the cancer.
Consideration for Mass Tort Attorneys
If there are fewer than a dozen plaintiffs exhibiting symptoms, a highly qualified and efficient forensic psychiatrist can be an anchoring force in conducting IMEs and issuing opinions.
If there are many plaintiffs, a group of experts can carry out the examinations more efficiently, and these specialists can work together cohesively.
Causation and Damages: The Medicine
It is not unusual for alleged toxic exposure to impact health. Various medical specialists may be involved. In toxic torts, the opinions of toxicologists, neurologists, medical toxicologists, and other experts are important to obtain the causal link and/or assess damages.
Forensic psychiatrists, as physicians, may be better suited in cases involving medical issues than psychologists, who are not medical doctors. However, a neuropsychologist is the appropriate specialist if there is a concern exposure has led to cognitive problems and neurocognitive testing is required.
Expert Witness Experience in Mass Tort
Retaining an expert with experience in mass torts can be helpful to the trier of fact. Mass torts have unique complexities and nuances.
For example, if plaintiffs reflect a community, like a town or neighborhood, features of mental illness may present differently than if there is a single plaintiff and a single injury.
Get Insight to Case Merit and Damages Early
Experience has led me to recommend that experts be retained earlier in the case to assist the law firm with triaging the plaintiffs who are most suited for IMEs. Read more about how consulting with a non-disclosed expert may be a good idea.
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/1718-7729/29/5/260/pdf?version=1651320225
Serial Sexual Assault
In this case, multiple women sued a defendant for emotional distress after sexual assaults. In this case, drug facilitated sexual assault (DFSA)* was a related factor. The plaintiffs had been drinking at the time of the assaults, and in at least one of the incidents, using an illicit drug. The plaintiffs reported similar scenarios: some time after they awoke, they realized they had been sexually assaulted.
The defendant was accused of adding a sedative medication to the plaintiffs’ beverages, causing them to black out.
The defendant was convicted of DFSA and the three plaintiffs sued him in civil court.
In my capacity as a retained expert witness forensic psychiatrist, I examined one of the plaintiffs before the case was settled and issued my findings. In that case, the plaintiff developed anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms after the sexual assault. It affected her sporting career and caused significant emotional distress, which impacted her career trajectory.
In cases involving intoxication and blackouts, it is important to retain a psychiatrist, who will have the medical qualifications to discuss the psychopharmacology of DFSA, interpret labs, and discuss blackouts.
I have been retained in several cases involving DFSA. “Date Rape Drugs: Weaponized Chemistry” is my article on this site that dives deeper into this disturbing subject.
In DFSA cases, a Medical Review Officer (MRO) can offer additional insight and testimony. As an MRO, I am trained in interpreting drug testing and results. In early reporting of DFSA, the presence or absence of medications might be relevant. Learn more about MROs in my article What is a Medical Review Officer and MRO Certification?
Multiple Medical Concerns
Multiple Plaintiffs
Multiple Evaluations
Evaluation by a Medical Expert Witness Team
Mass tort and toxic tort cases are especially complex and symptoms usually indicate a need for medical-legal experts in complementary medical, psychiatric, or neuropsychological specializations.
My work is in the realm of psychiatry, psychology, and cognitive and brain function. I collaborate with experts in these disciplines and manage these moving parts so attorneys don’t have to.
A group of specialists working on a single case provides efficiency and a deeper understanding of findings, enabling evaluators to approach a question together.
This is a considerable benefit to attorneys as they need not find each specialist on their own, or guess about the area of expertise that is relevant.
For example, if a plaintiff claims that exposure caused cognitive decline, a neuropsychologist is the right specialist to conduct psychometric tests on the parties.
In another scenario, if a child or adolescent is a plaintiff, the forensic psychiatrist trained in child & adolescent psychiatry may be asked to evaluate the young person. I work closely with Dr. Mendes for that reason, given his training and qualifications.
Having one “expert witness stop” saves time and can give the jury a more complete picture.
