Opinion ID: 2364446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expert Psychiatric Testimony

Text: [¶ 14] The statutory scheme required Spring Harbor to submit an individual treatment plan for Walter, including expert psychiatric testimony. 34-B M.R.S.A. § 3864(5)(F). Spring Harbor attempted to meet this requirement by calling Grace, a physician's assistant, to testify. Grace testified that (1) he held a master's degree in physician assistant studies; (2) he was licensed by the State of Maine; (3) he had been employed by Spring Harbor for two years; (4) his caseload ranged from four to twelve patients; (5) he worked under the supervision of a psychiatrist; (6) he had the ability to diagnose mental illness; and (7) he had the authority to prescribe certain medications including antipsychotic drugs. Walter objected that the physician's assistant was not qualified to give expert psychiatric testimony, but the court disagreed and allowed Grace's testimony. [¶ 15] Walter's objection to Grace's testimony is that it was not expert psychiatric testimony as that term is used in section 3864(5)(F). [4] The statute does not define the term expert psychiatric testimony. Therefore, we take it in its ordinary, common meaning, that is, an expert who can present psychiatric testimony. Psychiatric is an adjective used to describe the branch of medicine concerned with the study, treatment, and prevention of disorders of the mind, including psychoses and neuroses, emotional maladjustments, etc. WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE 1147 (2d ed. 1980). [¶ 16] The term expert psychiatric testimony encompasses the testimony of an expert who has psychiatric experience for the purpose of presenting and describing the treatment plan for the individual who is the subject of the commitment proceeding. Grace's qualifications demonstrate that he was educated, trained, and licensed; that he worked under the supervision of a psychiatrist in a mental health facility; that he was experienced in treating psychiatric patients; and that he was familiar with medications given to patients. The statute does not demand more. Had the drafters of the statute intended to require the testimony of a psychiatrist, they would have chosen different words. We conclude that the statute does not limit expert psychiatric testimony to that of a psychiatrist. When a physician's assistant, such as Grace, has the appropriate training, licensure, and experience, a court does not err in admitting the assistant's testimony to fulfill the expert psychiatric testimony requirement. Furthermore, we see no due process violation by allowing a physician's assistant rather than a psychiatrist to provide the statutorily required expert psychiatric testimony.