U.S. | Houston, Texas HQ
How do you “prove” emotional distress?
You don’t prove emotional distress.
You can present evidence that describes whether someone is suffering mentally.
“Emotional distress refers to mental suffering as an emotional response to an experience that arises from the effect or memory of a particular event, occurrence, pattern of events or condition. Emotional distress can usually be discerned from its symptoms (ex. Anxiety, depression, loss of ability to perform tasks, or physical illness).”
Emotional Distress
I can’t “prove” or “disprove” emotional distress. No expert witness can.
I do present medical evidence.
Damages
Whether the plaintiff’s experiences meet the legal threshold of “pain and suffering” or “emotional distress” is for the trier of fact to decide. At that point, if liability is proven, they will determine financial damages they believe are appropriate.
Proof
The jury decides if there’s proof of emotional distress.
When I conduct a forensic assessment, my task is to identify or rule out the presence of a medical condition and explain a plaintiff’s mental state.
Causation
If I do find the presence of a mental disorder, I am usually asked to consider if there is a causal link.
Car crash example
A car crash leads to physical injuries followed by a Mood Disorder like Depression.
Are they related? Was the Depression pre-existing? These are common questions I take into account.
Not all psychological conditions are the result of intentional or negligent infliction of pain and suffering by another.
And not all distressing experiences result in a psychiatric condition.
Is there a mental illness? Reasonable medical certainty or probability
I have been asked many times as an Expert Witness to testify about whether I have diagnosed a disabling psychological condition that is causing “emotional distress.” I must do so with reasonable medical certainty or probability, as a result of an investigation, IME, review of medical and even legal records.
How do we inform a Jury?
The task of the testifying psychiatrist is to present a sound foundation that underscores objective conclusions.
Testimony is most likely to be persuasive if the expert is credible, qualified, experienced and presents to the jury a logical path to the expert’s conclusion.
When I conduct a forensic evaluation, I may or may not diagnose a disorder. The idea of “proving emotional distress” might seem plaintiff-centric but it is not. My conclusions are the same regardless of the motivation of the attorney who first receives the information. A “happy” defense attorney or “satisfied” plaintiff’s attorney is not relevant to the expert witness.
