Preview
X06-UWY-CV19-5030819-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
JAMES DOE : COMPLEX LITIGATION
: DOCKET
:
V. : AT WATERBURY
:
BRUCE J. BEMER : MAY 1, 2024
OBJECTION TO THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANT’S
EXPERT, ALEXANDER SASHA BARDEY, M.D. (#292.00)
Bruce J. Bemer (the “Defendant”) respectfully objects to James Doe’s (the
“Plaintiff”) motion to preclude the Defendant’s expert, Alexander Sasha Bardey, M.D. 1
(Mot., #292.00). The Plaintiff seeks to preclude Dr. Bardey’s testimony in its entirety but
presents no argument or analysis as to why it should be precluded. 2 The Court should
conclude that such argument is abandoned as inadequately briefed. Estate of Rock v.
Univ. of Conn., 323 Conn. 26, 33 (2016) (“Claims are inadequately briefed when they are
merely mentioned and not briefed beyond a bare assertion. . . . Claims are also
inadequately briefed when they . . . consist of conclusory assertions . . . with no mention
of relevant authority and minimal or no citations from the record . . . .”). 3
1There are several points throughout the Plaintiff’s motion where he references a
“Dr. Saleh.” (Mot. at 3, 9, 10). This appears to be a clerical error. The Defendant assumes,
for the sake of this objection, that all references to Dr. Saleh are references to Dr. Bardey.
The Plaintiff also identifies himself as “John Doe,” (Mot. at 10), but his pseudonym
is “James Doe.” Again, the Defendant assumes for the sake of this objection that the
references to “John Doe” are references to “James Doe.”
2On the first page of the Plaintiff’s Motion, he states “[i]f the Doctor’s testimony is
not outright precluded,” it should be limited. (Mot. at 1). The Plaintiff provides no other
statement that suggests that it is seeking to preclude all of Dr. Bardey’s testimony. It is
unclear if they are advancing this argument.
3In addition to any request preclude the entirety of Dr. Bardey’s testimony, the
Plaintiff seems to raise other arguments in his motion that are inadequately brief. For
example, the Plaintiff provides the legal standards on the admissibility of expert
testimony, particularly as it pertains to methodology, but provides no argument or
analysis on how the methodology employed by Dr. Bardey was flawed. The only
suggestions as to Dr. Bardey’s methodology is the statement that “[i]n this case, there is
The Plaintiff then seeks to limit any evidence from Dr. Bardey on four topics. (Mot.
at 1 (list of the four topics)). The Defendant does not seek to solicit testimony on three of
these topics, including: (1) consent, (Mot. at 1, 10–11), (2) credibility of witnesses, (Mot.
at 1, 7–9), and; (3) any opinion not based on a reasonable degree of medical and
psychological certainty, (Mot. at 1).
The Defendant will seek to solicit testimony from Dr. Bardey on his opinions
relating to the psychological testing performed in this case. The Plaintiff claims that Dr.
Bardey is not qualified to provide such testimony because he is a psychiatrist, not a
psychologist. The Plaintiff presents no basis to assert that a psychiatrist is not qualified to
opine on psychological tests. The record suggests otherwise. Dr. Bardey has
demonstrated an expertise in understanding, administering, and interpreting the results
of psychological testing. (Ex. A; Dr. Bardey Depo Tr. at 22–25, 30–32). Thus, Dr. Bardey’s
testimony on psychological testing should not be precluded.
every reason for the Court to not only reject Dr. Bardey’s ‘methodology’ but to be
outraged at the orchestration of Dr. Bardey’s methodology by defense counsel’s
strategy considerations.” (Mot. at 5–6). The Plaintiff provides no explanation of what this
means. There is no allegation that Dr. Bardey used flawed methodology. The Plaintiff’s
baseless allegation that the defense somehow orchestrated Dr. Bardey’s methodology
should be rejected.
Similarly, the Plaintiff provides American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
ethical guidelines for the proposition that forensic examiners should be unbiased.
However, the Plaintiff provides no evidence or even argument that Dr. Bardey is biased.
In addition, the Plaintiff claims that “Defendant Bemer has repeatedly attempted
to go out and hire doctors to speak in his stead even while he invokes the Fifth
Amendment.” It is unclear whether the Plaintiff is arguing it is impermissible for a
defendant invoking the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination to hire an
expert to assess the Plaintiff’s claims. To the extent the Plaintiff is raising such an
argument, it is absurd, and in addition, is inadequately brief.
Finally, the Plaintiff seems to claim that Dr. Bardey should be precluded from
testifying about the Plaintiff’s decision to work for the Defendant for almost twenty years
after the alleged assault. (Mot. at 11–12). The Plaintiff again provides no legal authority
or factual basis for such a claim.
THE DEFENDANT,
BRUCE BEMER
By: /s/418202
Ryan P. Barry, Esq.
Brendon P. Levesque, Esq.
Corinne A. Burlingham, Esq.
Barry, Taylor & Levesque, LLC
989 Main Street
Manchester, CT 06040
T: (860) 649-4400
F: (860) 645-7900
E: rbarry@ct-attorneys.com
Firm Juris No. 428935
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on
this 1st day of May 2024, to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that
written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented
parties of record who were electronically served:
Kevin C. Ferry, Esq.
Law Office of Kevin C. Ferry, LLC
77 Lexington Street
New Britain, CT 06052
P: (860) 827-0880
/s/418202_
Ryan P. Barry, Esq.
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Exhibit A
1
1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT
2 SUPERIOR COURT
3 - - - - - - - - - x
JAMES DOE, | Complex Litigation
4 | Docket at Waterbury
Plaintiff, |
5 |
v. | Docket No.
6 | X10-UWY-CV-19-5030819-S
BRUCE BEMER, |
7 |
| April 9, 2024
8 Defendant. |
- - - - - - - - - x
9
10
11
12 DEPOSITION OF DR. ALEXANDER BARDEY
13 Via Videoconference
14
15
16 Taken Before Paul Connelly, Certified Verbatim
Reporter and Notary Public within and for the
17 State of Connecticut, pursuant to Notice and the
Connecticut Practice Book, via videoconference on
18 April 9, 2024, commencing at 1:00 p.m.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Plaintiff:
3 LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN C. FERRY, LLC
77 Lexington Street
4 New Britain, CT 06052
860.827.0880
5 sam@ferrylaw.com
By: SAMUEL C. MARTIN, ESQ.
6
7 For the Defendant:
8 BARRY, BARALL, TAYLOR & LEVESQUE, LLC
989 Main Street
9 Manchester, CT 06040
860.645.7900
10 rbarry@ct-attorneys.com
By: RYAN P. BARRY, ESQ.
11
12 Also Present:
13 KEVIN C. FERRY, ESQ
Law Office of Kevin Ferry, LLC
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
22
1 at Stony Brook. I graduated in 1988.
2 Q Okay. And you are license to practice
3 medicine?
4 A Yes, I am, in the State of New York.
5 Q Okay. Any other states?
6 A No.
7 Q Okay. Did you pass the medical boards the
8 first time?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Okay. Did you fail any part of your state
11 boards the first time during or immediately after
12 completing medical school?
13 A No.
14 Q Okay. Did you have to retake any part of
15 your state boards to get your license to practice in
16 New York?
17 A No.
18 Q Okay. Do you have a website?
19 A Yes.
20 Q What is it?
21 A It's fifthavenueforensics.com.
22 Q Are you a licensed psychologist or
23 psychiatrist?
24 A Psychiatrist.
25 Q Okay. Do you consider yourself an expert in
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
23
1 the area of psychological testing?
2 A I'm not an expert, but I am proficient at
3 administering them and reviewing the results.
4 Q Okay. The testing that I am referring to
5 that is sort of in this particular case is the MMPI.
6 A Three.
7 Q Sorry, yes. The MMPI-3. The TSI-2, the
8 CAPS-5, and the PCL-5, correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Okay. So, are you an expert in the area of
11 administering all of those tests, or any of those
12 tests?
13 A Yes. I routinely administer the TSI, the
14 MMPI. The CAPS, not so much, but I am very familiar
15 with that particular test.
16 Q Okay. What about the PCL-5?
17 A I'm not sure what you mean by PCL-5. Was
18 that one of the tests that Bennett administered?
19 Q Yes. It is a companion to the -- I believe
20 it's a companion to the CAPS-5. Are you familiar with
21 the PCL-5?
22 A I think it's a subset within the CAPS. I
23 don't think it is a standalone test.
24 Q Okay. Are you familiar with that portion of
25 it, if it's a portion of the CAPS?
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
24
1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. Have you ever administered that? Have
3 you ever administered the CAPS-5 before?
4 A I have a psychologist who work for me who
5 administer the testing on my behalf.
6 Q Okay. Why do you have someone else do it?
7 A A couple of reasons. One is that there are
8 some areas where the testing goes beyond my expertise.
9 Sort of, cases with head injuries, cases of dementia,
10 cases where neuropsychological testing is required.
11 That is not something that I'm trained to do, so I
12 employ a psychologist.
13 I also in general employ a psychologist to
14 assist in these tests to ease my workload and to make
15 sure that I get the most reliable interpretation, and
16 that I don't miss anything. So, it's kind of a check
17 and balance.
18 Q Okay. So independently, without that
19 assistance, your conclusions from those tests might not
20 be as reliable if you didn't have a psychologist there
21 to assist; is that right?
22 A It depends on the test, right? The test that
23 we are talking about the, TSI, MMPI, the CAPS are all
24 tests that I would feel very proficient in reviewing
25 the answers and interpretations to.
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
25
1 Q But not administering, correct?
2 A No. I could administer them. I used to. My
3 practice has grown and so I have someone else do it.
4 Much like an orthopedic surgeon has a radiologist or a
5 tech do X-rays in their office. They can do it
6 themselves, but in the interest of saving time and
7 money they have a tech do it instead.
8 Q Okay. So, did you avail yourself of the
9 assistance of a psychologist when you prepared your
10 report at any time being involved in this particular
11 case?
12 A I did not administer any testing in this
13 case. I just reviewed the testing that Dr. Bennett had
14 done and I am perfectly competent at reviewing her
15 interpretation, or their interpretation of the test
16 results.
17 Q Okay. What about Dr. Epstein? She was going
18 to be -- she was going to sit in on Mr. Doe's
19 evaluation and we put a stop to that.
20 What would Dr. Epstein have done if she had
21 been allowed to stay on for that evaluation?
22 A She would have taken notes.
23 Q Okay. Would she have performed any
24 psychological testing?
25 A No.
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
30
1 lot of it has to do with training and experience.
2 That's where the expertise is acquired. In a sense,
3 you're asking the wrong question in this particular
4 case.
5 Q Well, does --
6 A Hang on. Let me finish my answer. This is
7 not about my decision to prescribed Lexapro versus
8 Prozac and then making that decision.
9 Q Doctor, I have a specific amount of time with
10 you and I don't think you're answering my question. My
11 question was: What literature are you relying on to
12 make the statement that any time a CAPS-5 -- or a
13 CAPS-5 test should not be administered where there's,
14 for example, litigation going on where there's some
15 sort of specter of unreliability? I'm looking for that
16 particular answer. If the answer is, I don't have any,
17 then that's fine. We can move on from the question.
18 MR. BARRY: Objection.
19 THE WITNESS: The issue is not whether
20 or not it's indicated or contraindicated.
21 It's whether it's useful or not. So, you
22 can do it, it is just not useful.
23 BY MR. MARTIN:
24 Q Okay. I'm looking for the basis for saying,
25 It is not useful. Is there an article that I can look
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
31
1 at? Is there a treatise that I can look at that will
2 say, Yes, Dr. Bardey is right on the money with this?
3 Is it just subjective experience?
4 What you're basically telling me to some
5 extent is that your 30 years of experience, your
6 subjective experience is enough to inform this
7 particular conclusion, which is incredibly relevant to
8 this case.
9 MR. BARRY: Objection.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I explained
11 to you the reason why I would choose a test
12 that has embedded validity scales, rather
13 than a face value. I think that makes sense
14 even to a layperson.
15 BY MR. MARTIN:
16 Q Okay. Well, is the TSI-2 and the MMPI-3, are
17 those tests that are geared towards evaluating PTSD?
18 A The TSI, yes, specifically. The MMPI is more
19 general. It tests for all psychiatric or psychological
20 pathology, including trauma-related disorders. The TSI
21 is specifically a trauma -- a tool to gauge the impact
22 of trauma.
23 Q The impact of trauma, or specifically
24 post-traumatic stress disorder as a condition?
25 A Both of those tests, the CAPS and the TSI
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
32
1 test for the impact of trauma which can include PTSD,
2 but it can include other trauma-related disorders as
3 well.
4 Q Is that true for the CAPS-5 as well? It's
5 not just for PTSD?
6 A Sure. It tests for specific -- the CAPS-5 is
7 essentially a questionnaire based on the criteria in
8 the DSM-5-TR, the DSM-5-TR being the diagnostic and
9 statistical manual of mental disorders, which is the
10 book that codifies our diagnostic criteria used by
11 psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed social
12 workers. It tests for symptoms of a trauma-related
13 disorder, including PTSD.
14 Q Will you agree that you cannot cite to any
15 medical literature which states the CAPS-5 is
16 unreliable in the setting of civil litigation?
17 A As I sit here right now I can think of none,
18 but there may be some that I am not aware of.
19 Q All right. What percentage of your -- do
20 you -- how would you characterize this context? Are we
21 in the med-legal context? Is this the overlap of the
22 medical world and the legal world?
23 A Absolutely.
24 Q Okay. That's a pretty broad sphere, that
25 med-legal sphere? Sometimes it has to do with
ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557
Preview
X06-UWY-CV19-5030819-S : SUPERIOR COURT : JAMES DOE : COMPLEX LITIGATION : DOCKET : V. : AT WATERBURY : BRUCE J. BEMER : MAY 1, 2024 OBJECTION TO THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, ALEXANDER SASHA BARDEY, M.D. (#292.00) Bruce J. Bemer (the “Defendant”) respectfully objects to James Doe’s (the “Plaintiff”) motion to preclude the Defendant’s expert, Alexander Sasha Bardey, M.D. 1 (Mot., #292.00). The Plaintiff seeks to preclude Dr. Bardey’s testimony in its entirety but presents no argument or analysis as to why it should be precluded. 2 The Court should conclude that such argument is abandoned as inadequately briefed. Estate of Rock v. Univ. of Conn., 323 Conn. 26, 33 (2016) (“Claims are inadequately briefed when they are merely mentioned and not briefed beyond a bare assertion. . . . Claims are also inadequately briefed when they . . . consist of conclusory assertions . . . with no mention of relevant authority and minimal or no citations from the record . . . .”). 3 1There are several points throughout the Plaintiff’s motion where he references a “Dr. Saleh.” (Mot. at 3, 9, 10). This appears to be a clerical error. The Defendant assumes, for the sake of this objection, that all references to Dr. Saleh are references to Dr. Bardey. The Plaintiff also identifies himself as “John Doe,” (Mot. at 10), but his pseudonym is “James Doe.” Again, the Defendant assumes for the sake of this objection that the references to “John Doe” are references to “James Doe.” 2On the first page of the Plaintiff’s Motion, he states “[i]f the Doctor’s testimony is not outright precluded,” it should be limited. (Mot. at 1). The Plaintiff provides no other statement that suggests that it is seeking to preclude all of Dr. Bardey’s testimony. It is unclear if they are advancing this argument. 3In addition to any request preclude the entirety of Dr. Bardey’s testimony, the Plaintiff seems to raise other arguments in his motion that are inadequately brief. For example, the Plaintiff provides the legal standards on the admissibility of expert testimony, particularly as it pertains to methodology, but provides no argument or analysis on how the methodology employed by Dr. Bardey was flawed. The only suggestions as to Dr. Bardey’s methodology is the statement that “[i]n this case, there is The Plaintiff then seeks to limit any evidence from Dr. Bardey on four topics. (Mot. at 1 (list of the four topics)). The Defendant does not seek to solicit testimony on three of these topics, including: (1) consent, (Mot. at 1, 10–11), (2) credibility of witnesses, (Mot. at 1, 7–9), and; (3) any opinion not based on a reasonable degree of medical and psychological certainty, (Mot. at 1). The Defendant will seek to solicit testimony from Dr. Bardey on his opinions relating to the psychological testing performed in this case. The Plaintiff claims that Dr. Bardey is not qualified to provide such testimony because he is a psychiatrist, not a psychologist. The Plaintiff presents no basis to assert that a psychiatrist is not qualified to opine on psychological tests. The record suggests otherwise. Dr. Bardey has demonstrated an expertise in understanding, administering, and interpreting the results of psychological testing. (Ex. A; Dr. Bardey Depo Tr. at 22–25, 30–32). Thus, Dr. Bardey’s testimony on psychological testing should not be precluded. every reason for the Court to not only reject Dr. Bardey’s ‘methodology’ but to be outraged at the orchestration of Dr. Bardey’s methodology by defense counsel’s strategy considerations.” (Mot. at 5–6). The Plaintiff provides no explanation of what this means. There is no allegation that Dr. Bardey used flawed methodology. The Plaintiff’s baseless allegation that the defense somehow orchestrated Dr. Bardey’s methodology should be rejected. Similarly, the Plaintiff provides American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law ethical guidelines for the proposition that forensic examiners should be unbiased. However, the Plaintiff provides no evidence or even argument that Dr. Bardey is biased. In addition, the Plaintiff claims that “Defendant Bemer has repeatedly attempted to go out and hire doctors to speak in his stead even while he invokes the Fifth Amendment.” It is unclear whether the Plaintiff is arguing it is impermissible for a defendant invoking the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination to hire an expert to assess the Plaintiff’s claims. To the extent the Plaintiff is raising such an argument, it is absurd, and in addition, is inadequately brief. Finally, the Plaintiff seems to claim that Dr. Bardey should be precluded from testifying about the Plaintiff’s decision to work for the Defendant for almost twenty years after the alleged assault. (Mot. at 11–12). The Plaintiff again provides no legal authority or factual basis for such a claim. THE DEFENDANT, BRUCE BEMER By: /s/418202 Ryan P. Barry, Esq. Brendon P. Levesque, Esq. Corinne A. Burlingham, Esq. Barry, Taylor & Levesque, LLC 989 Main Street Manchester, CT 06040 T: (860) 649-4400 F: (860) 645-7900 E: rbarry@ct-attorneys.com Firm Juris No. 428935 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on this 1st day of May 2024, to all counsel and self-represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were electronically served: Kevin C. Ferry, Esq. Law Office of Kevin C. Ferry, LLC 77 Lexington Street New Britain, CT 06052 P: (860) 827-0880 /s/418202_ Ryan P. Barry, Esq. Commissioner of the Superior Court Exhibit A 1 1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2 SUPERIOR COURT 3 - - - - - - - - - x JAMES DOE, | Complex Litigation 4 | Docket at Waterbury Plaintiff, | 5 | v. | Docket No. 6 | X10-UWY-CV-19-5030819-S BRUCE BEMER, | 7 | | April 9, 2024 8 Defendant. | - - - - - - - - - x 9 10 11 12 DEPOSITION OF DR. ALEXANDER BARDEY 13 Via Videoconference 14 15 16 Taken Before Paul Connelly, Certified Verbatim Reporter and Notary Public within and for the 17 State of Connecticut, pursuant to Notice and the Connecticut Practice Book, via videoconference on 18 April 9, 2024, commencing at 1:00 p.m. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For the Plaintiff: 3 LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN C. FERRY, LLC 77 Lexington Street 4 New Britain, CT 06052 860.827.0880 5 sam@ferrylaw.com By: SAMUEL C. MARTIN, ESQ. 6 7 For the Defendant: 8 BARRY, BARALL, TAYLOR & LEVESQUE, LLC 989 Main Street 9 Manchester, CT 06040 860.645.7900 10 rbarry@ct-attorneys.com By: RYAN P. BARRY, ESQ. 11 12 Also Present: 13 KEVIN C. FERRY, ESQ Law Office of Kevin Ferry, LLC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 22 1 at Stony Brook. I graduated in 1988. 2 Q Okay. And you are license to practice 3 medicine? 4 A Yes, I am, in the State of New York. 5 Q Okay. Any other states? 6 A No. 7 Q Okay. Did you pass the medical boards the 8 first time? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. Did you fail any part of your state 11 boards the first time during or immediately after 12 completing medical school? 13 A No. 14 Q Okay. Did you have to retake any part of 15 your state boards to get your license to practice in 16 New York? 17 A No. 18 Q Okay. Do you have a website? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What is it? 21 A It's fifthavenueforensics.com. 22 Q Are you a licensed psychologist or 23 psychiatrist? 24 A Psychiatrist. 25 Q Okay. Do you consider yourself an expert in ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 23 1 the area of psychological testing? 2 A I'm not an expert, but I am proficient at 3 administering them and reviewing the results. 4 Q Okay. The testing that I am referring to 5 that is sort of in this particular case is the MMPI. 6 A Three. 7 Q Sorry, yes. The MMPI-3. The TSI-2, the 8 CAPS-5, and the PCL-5, correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. So, are you an expert in the area of 11 administering all of those tests, or any of those 12 tests? 13 A Yes. I routinely administer the TSI, the 14 MMPI. The CAPS, not so much, but I am very familiar 15 with that particular test. 16 Q Okay. What about the PCL-5? 17 A I'm not sure what you mean by PCL-5. Was 18 that one of the tests that Bennett administered? 19 Q Yes. It is a companion to the -- I believe 20 it's a companion to the CAPS-5. Are you familiar with 21 the PCL-5? 22 A I think it's a subset within the CAPS. I 23 don't think it is a standalone test. 24 Q Okay. Are you familiar with that portion of 25 it, if it's a portion of the CAPS? ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 24 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. Have you ever administered that? Have 3 you ever administered the CAPS-5 before? 4 A I have a psychologist who work for me who 5 administer the testing on my behalf. 6 Q Okay. Why do you have someone else do it? 7 A A couple of reasons. One is that there are 8 some areas where the testing goes beyond my expertise. 9 Sort of, cases with head injuries, cases of dementia, 10 cases where neuropsychological testing is required. 11 That is not something that I'm trained to do, so I 12 employ a psychologist. 13 I also in general employ a psychologist to 14 assist in these tests to ease my workload and to make 15 sure that I get the most reliable interpretation, and 16 that I don't miss anything. So, it's kind of a check 17 and balance. 18 Q Okay. So independently, without that 19 assistance, your conclusions from those tests might not 20 be as reliable if you didn't have a psychologist there 21 to assist; is that right? 22 A It depends on the test, right? The test that 23 we are talking about the, TSI, MMPI, the CAPS are all 24 tests that I would feel very proficient in reviewing 25 the answers and interpretations to. ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 25 1 Q But not administering, correct? 2 A No. I could administer them. I used to. My 3 practice has grown and so I have someone else do it. 4 Much like an orthopedic surgeon has a radiologist or a 5 tech do X-rays in their office. They can do it 6 themselves, but in the interest of saving time and 7 money they have a tech do it instead. 8 Q Okay. So, did you avail yourself of the 9 assistance of a psychologist when you prepared your 10 report at any time being involved in this particular 11 case? 12 A I did not administer any testing in this 13 case. I just reviewed the testing that Dr. Bennett had 14 done and I am perfectly competent at reviewing her 15 interpretation, or their interpretation of the test 16 results. 17 Q Okay. What about Dr. Epstein? She was going 18 to be -- she was going to sit in on Mr. Doe's 19 evaluation and we put a stop to that. 20 What would Dr. Epstein have done if she had 21 been allowed to stay on for that evaluation? 22 A She would have taken notes. 23 Q Okay. Would she have performed any 24 psychological testing? 25 A No. ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 30 1 lot of it has to do with training and experience. 2 That's where the expertise is acquired. In a sense, 3 you're asking the wrong question in this particular 4 case. 5 Q Well, does -- 6 A Hang on. Let me finish my answer. This is 7 not about my decision to prescribed Lexapro versus 8 Prozac and then making that decision. 9 Q Doctor, I have a specific amount of time with 10 you and I don't think you're answering my question. My 11 question was: What literature are you relying on to 12 make the statement that any time a CAPS-5 -- or a 13 CAPS-5 test should not be administered where there's, 14 for example, litigation going on where there's some 15 sort of specter of unreliability? I'm looking for that 16 particular answer. If the answer is, I don't have any, 17 then that's fine. We can move on from the question. 18 MR. BARRY: Objection. 19 THE WITNESS: The issue is not whether 20 or not it's indicated or contraindicated. 21 It's whether it's useful or not. So, you 22 can do it, it is just not useful. 23 BY MR. MARTIN: 24 Q Okay. I'm looking for the basis for saying, 25 It is not useful. Is there an article that I can look ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 31 1 at? Is there a treatise that I can look at that will 2 say, Yes, Dr. Bardey is right on the money with this? 3 Is it just subjective experience? 4 What you're basically telling me to some 5 extent is that your 30 years of experience, your 6 subjective experience is enough to inform this 7 particular conclusion, which is incredibly relevant to 8 this case. 9 MR. BARRY: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I explained 11 to you the reason why I would choose a test 12 that has embedded validity scales, rather 13 than a face value. I think that makes sense 14 even to a layperson. 15 BY MR. MARTIN: 16 Q Okay. Well, is the TSI-2 and the MMPI-3, are 17 those tests that are geared towards evaluating PTSD? 18 A The TSI, yes, specifically. The MMPI is more 19 general. It tests for all psychiatric or psychological 20 pathology, including trauma-related disorders. The TSI 21 is specifically a trauma -- a tool to gauge the impact 22 of trauma. 23 Q The impact of trauma, or specifically 24 post-traumatic stress disorder as a condition? 25 A Both of those tests, the CAPS and the TSI ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557 32 1 test for the impact of trauma which can include PTSD, 2 but it can include other trauma-related disorders as 3 well. 4 Q Is that true for the CAPS-5 as well? It's 5 not just for PTSD? 6 A Sure. It tests for specific -- the CAPS-5 is 7 essentially a questionnaire based on the criteria in 8 the DSM-5-TR, the DSM-5-TR being the diagnostic and 9 statistical manual of mental disorders, which is the 10 book that codifies our diagnostic criteria used by 11 psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed social 12 workers. It tests for symptoms of a trauma-related 13 disorder, including PTSD. 14 Q Will you agree that you cannot cite to any 15 medical literature which states the CAPS-5 is 16 unreliable in the setting of civil litigation? 17 A As I sit here right now I can think of none, 18 but there may be some that I am not aware of. 19 Q All right. What percentage of your -- do 20 you -- how would you characterize this context? Are we 21 in the med-legal context? Is this the overlap of the 22 medical world and the legal world? 23 A Absolutely. 24 Q Okay. That's a pretty broad sphere, that 25 med-legal sphere? Sometimes it has to do with ALLAN REPORTING SERVICES - (860)693-8557