I consider that Tabah v. Bress is distinguishable in the present circumstances. First, psychiatric evidence is unique. Forensic psychiatric experts who are not actively treating the injured party, serve the purpose of avoiding the problematic presentation of evidence from an expert witness in court who may be accused of having developed a therapeutic bond with the plaintiff. It might be suggested that psychiatrists, by nature, develop such a therapeutic bond with the patients they are treating and, in turn, this bond might conflict with the duty of the expert to provide an unbiased opinion to the court. A non-treating expert prevents this allegation.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.