Case Examples
The following vignettes illustrate the ways that Dr. Williams
has participated in civil and criminal matters:
- Immigration: Dr. Williams evaluated a United States citizen who claimed that deportation of her immigrant husband, and attendant marital separation, would result in an extreme emotional hardship. Dr. Williams concluded that the United States citizen wife had suffered from Separation Anxiety Disorder as a child and continued to suffer from Generalized Anxiety Disorder as well as Dependent Personality Disorder as an adult. Because of these significant psychological problems, Dr. Williams’ professional opinion was that the United States citizen would experience an extreme hardship should immigration problems lead to an unplanned marital separation.
In a separate immigration matter, Dr. Williams interviewed and evaluated a resident of the United States who had been accused by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services of obtaining his resident status by means of a sham marriage. Dr. Williams’ review of the immigrant’s life history and psychological status led him to conclude that, more likely than not, the immigrant’s marriage was the result of genuine emotions and genuine commitment and was not done for immigration purposes. The Immigration Service later dropped their sham marriage assertion without comment.
- Sexual harassment: Dr. Williams was
retained by a police department that was defending a claim
of sexual harassment brought by a female employee. This
employee had been involved in a sexual relationship with one
of her superiors. The plaintiff had introduced “social
framework analysis” and testimony by a social psychologist
to document that the working environment would be experienced
as harassing by most female employees. Dr. Williams
testified that such a social framework analysis was not appropriate
evidence and that the individual plaintiff needed to undergo
a psychological evaluation to determine whether she,
in particular, had suffered ill effects of the harassment
that was the basis for her damage claim.
- Psychotherapy malpractice: Dr. Williams
was retained by the psychotherapist-defendant in an unusual
case in which alienation of affection was claimed by the ex-husband
of a psychotherapy patient. The ex-husband claimed that
the relationship between his ex-wife and her female therapist
had become sexual and had led to the dissolution of the marriage.
This suit was brought in one of the few states in which alienation
of affection claims may still be brought, and the ex-wife
herself was not a party to the case. Dr. Williams testified
that there was no basis, in his review of the discoverable
documents, to conclude that a sexual relationship, or any
other psychotherapy malpractice, had occurred.
- Personal injury: A woman sued her
ex-boyfriend, the owner of a Doberman Pincher, for injuries
that resulted from numerous dog bites that occurred during
a vicious attack. The bites had also caused facial disfiguration.
Dr. Williams was retained by the plaintiff to document the
psychological consequences of the disfiguration and to assist
in determining the monetary costs of the damages.
- Housing discrimination: Dr. Williams
was retained by a property owner who was defending a lawsuit
claiming that he preferred to rent to Korean tenants and was
systematically engaged in discrimination against tenants who
were not Korean. The tenants who brought the suit used
a psychological analysis of the overall causes and consequences
of racial discrimination. Dr. Williams provided a declaration
stating that each plaintiff must undergo an independent psychological
evaluation to determine the extent of harm and causation of
that harm for the particular plaintiff.
- Psychotherapy malpractice: Dr. Williams
was retained by a plaintiff who claimed that her life-coaching
trainer had engaged in practices that essentially constituted
psychotherapy and had then engaged in a sexual relationship
with her. Dr. Williams testified that the discoverable
evidence indicated that all the elements of psychotherapy
were present and that sexual relationships between psychotherapist
and client are unethical and could have led to the harm claimed
by the plaintiff.
- Criminal intent—sex with a minor:
Dr. Williams was retained by a criminal defendant accused
of using the internet and crossing state lines to engage in
sexual activity with a minor. The defendant claimed
that the sexual activity had been spontaneous and unpremeditated
and that the criminal charges should be mitigated on that
basis. After reviewing the evidence, Dr. Williams and
the defendant’s attorney were able to educate the defendant
as the appropriateness of the original charges and that accepting
the plea bargain that was on the table was in the defendant’s
best interests.
- Competency to stand trial—murder:
Dr. Williams was retained by a criminal defendant who was
accused of killing his infant son by beatings and suffocation.
The defense attorney believed the defendant was not competent
to stand trial. Dr. Williams evaluated the defendant
in jail using the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial
measure developed by Rogers and associates. Using this
systematic method, Dr. Williams advised the attorney that
his client was, indeed, competent.
- Police Board of Rights Hearing: Dr. Williams
evaluated a female police officer and testified on her behalf
at a Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights Hearing.
A tribunal of administrative police officers was asked to
rule on the officer's fitness to carry a weapon. Her fitness
had been questioned because she had sought treatment for depression.
The police department's in-house psychologist testified that
she was unfit for duty while Dr. Williams testified that she
was fit for duty. The Board of Rights denied the officer's
request to return to duty. Based on the record of that hearing,
the decision was appealed and overturned at Superior Court.
The officer was awarded full retirement.
- Psychiatric malpractice: Dr. Williams
was retained by an attorney whose firm specialized in licensing
board defense for psychotherapy malpractice cases. The
client, a psychiatrist, was accused of initiating a sexual
relationship with the female partner of his male patient.
The psychiatrist intended to argue his case before the Medical
Board and hoped retain his medical license. Dr. Williams
wrote an opinion that the attorney presented to the defendant.
This written opinion enabled the defendant to understand that
a successful defense was extremely unlikely. The psychiatrist
surrendered his medical license.
- Priest abuse: Dr. Williams was retained
by a plaintiff who was suing a diocese for sexual abuse that
had occurred approximately 30 years previously, when the plaintiff
had been a minor. Dr. Williams carried out a psychological
evaluation of the plaintiff and determined that the emotional
damages had been extensive and documented the nature of these
damages.
- Date rape: Dr. Williams was retained
by a civil defendant in a case in which the plaintiff claimed
emotional damages resulting from date rape. Dr. Williams
evaluated the plaintiff and testified that there were no such
damages and that the plaintiff was not credible in a variety
of respects. The plaintiff’s claim centered on
her argument that she had been intoxicated at the time the
events occurred and, consequently, had been unable to give
consent. Forensic toxicology testimony was consistent
with the defense claim that the plaintiff had not been intoxicated
during the time period in question and that the sexual activity
had been consenting.
- Custody: Dr. Williams was retained
by a mother who had reason to believe her ex-husband was planning
to kill her and her new husband. Dr. Williams reviewed
documents that had been submitted to court by the court-appointed
custody evaluator. The custody evaluator implied that
the murder threat was not credible and offered a custody opinion
that was reasonable, as long as one assumed that there had
been no murder plot. Dr. Williams offered a written
opinion stating that the custody evaluator had no scientific
or psychological basis to rule out the existence of the murder
plot and that law enforcement methods, rather than psychological
methods, were required to address this question. Dr.
Williams recommended that the terms of custody be revised
until this matter could be put to rest.
- Wrongful death: Dr. Williams was
retained by plaintiff-parents who claimed that their mentally
ill son, who had been shot and killed by police, had received
inadequate care by his psychologist on the day of his death
and should have been placed on a psychiatric hold for his
own protection instead of being allowed to leave the doctor’s
office. Dr. Williams testified that the care had been
inadequate and had been a proximal cause of the young man’s
death.
- Wrongful termination: Dr. Williams
was retained by a municipality that was accused of wrongfully
terminating an employee who had stolen city property.
The employee claimed he suffered from obsessive-compulsive
disorder and was entitled to accommodations under the Americans
With Disabilities Act because his hoarding behavior was caused
by his disease. Dr. Williams prepared an opinion that
the employee more likely suffered from kleptomania, a condition
not protected by the ADA, or that he suffered from no mental
condition whatsoever and that his criminal behavior had been
carried out as a result of his own choices.
- Fitness to parent, Juvenile Dependency Court: Dr. Williams was retained by a law firm that practices in Juvenile Dependency Court. Their client was being deprived of custody of her two children largely due to an unfavorable report carried out by a court-appointed psychologist. The previous psychologist had concluded, in part, that the client suffers from a personality disorder that renders her unfit to parent. Dr. Williams re-evaluated the client using interview and objective psychological testing and determined that she was fit to parent. Dr. Williams agreed that the client suffered from a personality disorder. However, he testified that the presence of a personality disorder is neither unusual nor disabling and, in and of itself, should have no bearing on parental rights in the absence of compelling evidence that the mother is unfit. Custody was restored.
- Fitness to parent, Family Court: Dr. Williams has been retained in numerous cases in which one divorcing spouse raised questions about the mental stability of the other divorcing spouse. These questions threatened the custodial rights of the parent about whom the questions had been raised. Such questions included claims of inappropriate anger, psychosis, sadism and paranoia. Although a court-ordered custody evaluation was carried out, the attorney for the accused parent sought to bolster that parent's case by requesting an additional evaluation by Dr. Williams. Dr. Williams used interview and objective psychological testing to determine whether the individual suffered from any mental disorder that would compromise the ability to provide appropriate care for children. Dr. Williams testified as to his conclusions in Family Court.
