Post-traumatic stress disorder and expert testimony: Deficiencies identified by the Supreme Court

Abstract

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a topic frequently addressed to expert witnesses by the courts. This study aims to identify expert weaknesses by analyzing judicial decision texts in which a first-instance court decision was reversed due to flaws discovered in the evaluation of post-traumatic stress disorder by experts in the Supreme Court database. The case law decisions made by both penal and civil chambers relating to post-traumatic stress disorder between the years 2007 and 2022 were studied utilizing the database of the Turkish Court of Cassation. Of the 300 higher court decisions analyzed, 130 (43.3%) were penal chamber decisions and 170 (56.7%) were civil chamber decisions. The most often noted weakness in expert-written reports is the lack of causality evaluations (n=150; 50%). The second most common defect in judicial decisions is the lack of specialists who ought to participate on the evaluation board (n=79; 26.3%). Experts who assess this matter are known to make mistakes or inadequacies while writing reports, particularly with regard to the remarks on permanence and causality. These flaws and/or mistakes have the potential to traumatize the victim of the occurrence in question through repeated examinations and to lengthen the legal proceedings.