Cross-examining and Impeaching Expert Psychiatric Witnesses

• Publication year: 1997
• Pages: 75

26 Colo.Law. 75 Colorado Lawyer 1997.

1997, November, Pg. 75. Cross-Examining and Impeaching Expert Psychiatric Witnesses

---

75

Vol.26, No. 11, Pg. 75

The Colorado Lawyer
November 1997
Vol. 26, No. 11 [Page 75]

Specialty Law Columns
Civil Evidence
Cross-Examining and Impeaching Expert Psychiatric Witnesses
by Susan B. Dussault

Q: During cross-examination, may a party ask an expert psychiatric witness whether the expert knows of certain prior conduct of the individual about whom the expert offers an opinion

A: The trial court has the discretion to allow such questioning, if the conduct is of the type that, if known by the expert, would affect the opinion offered

Assumed Facts

Pat Plaintiff has brought a lawsuit against Painters, Inc for the injuries Pat suffered in a car crash. Pat claims that he was forced off the road and into a hayfield when he looked out his rear view mirror and realized, to his horror, that one of Painters' trucks was barreling down on him from behind. The Painters truck also swerved off the road and came to rest near Pat's car. Although the two vehicles never collided, the accident resulted in gallons of paint spilling into the hayfield. While surrounded by spilled paint and toxic paint fumes, Pat waited for hours for medical attention and a tow truck.

The physical injuries Pat suffered were minor; the bulk of the damages he seeks are for psychological injuries. Pat claims that the sight and smell of paint are now intolerable to him, because they cause flashbacks of the accident. Unfortunately, Pat's wife is a professional oil painter who works out of their home. Pat has had to move out of the house, and alleges that his marriage has ended.

To support his damages claim, Pat offers expert testimony from his treating psychiatrist. The psychiatrist opines that the accident's detrimental impact on Pat's mental condition is so strong that it was the most significant contributing factor to the break-up of his previously happy marriage. In addition, the psychiatrist opines that Pat is not a malingerer.

During cross-examination, Painters wants to ask Pat's psychiatrist whether she knew that (1) during the six months before Pat's accident, Pat was arrested twice after his wife called the police and reported that he had assaulted her; and (2) less than two years before Pat's accident, a judgment for breach of contract was...