Opinion ID: 2738168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Parikh’s Testimony

Text: At trial, Defendant’s psychiatrist, Dr. Anil Parikh, testified regarding Defendant’s physical and mental conditions. Dr. Parikh testified that he believed Defendant suffered from chronic physical pain as well as depression and anxiety resulting from her work-related injury. When asked about Defendant’s condition between September 1996 and June 2008, Dr. Parikh stated that Defendant “continued to have significant symptoms of depression with many of her vegetative symptoms . . . and she had continued to have significant amounts of pain.” (R. 124, 12/11/2012 Trial Tr., at PageID# 1839.) Some of the vegetative symptoms included crying spells, feelings of hopelessness, isolation, and suicidal inclinations. Additionally, Dr. Parikh testified that Defendant suffered from psychosis. He explained some of her psychosis-related symptoms: When she’s psychotic, she totally isolates herself. She doesn’t show up for her appointment. She doesn’t take her medicine. Her hygiene is not the same . . . and she feels like the world is out to get her, and she is feeling paranoid and hallucinating because God is telling her something, what’s going to happen tomorrow. (Id. at PageID# 1843.) Dr. Parikh treated Defendant for over two decades, helping her deal with both her chronic physical pain and mental disabilities. He testified at trial that Defendant’s condition would fluctuate from day to day. He explained that on some days during that condition that particular time frame may be okay, and part of that is because she has learned with the group counseling, with individual counseling, with family support, with medication to cope with some of these things. 3 No. 13-3315 So you may find her some days in someplace that she might be accepting the illness and behaving in a socially acceptable way. But other times, when you take a deep value and look inside her brain and ask her really important questions, you feel like this is a person who is totally psychotic who has lost touch with reality. She’s hearing God’s voice, God is telling her what’s going to happen tomorrow. She is hearing things. She thinks people are out to kill her. She’s making, you know, plans to prevent people from killing her and all this. So this is a woman who . . . on one occasion may look perfectly normal and on another occasion she may be totally psychotic. And the only way to really get a feeling of it, and I have during the time frame, is to really look at her from a longitudinal perspective instead of looking at her in one time frame. (Id. at PageID# 1841–42.) Testimony from Defendant’s family members and friends confirmed many of these symptoms and the unpredictability of her illness. Defendant’s daughter, April Stephens, testified that Defendant experienced extreme mood swings and was depressed and isolated. Defendant’s husband, Donald Miller, testified that Defendant seemed depressed most of the time. Dr. Parikh attempted a number of strategies to relieve some of Defendant’s symptoms, including medications and individual and group counseling. Despite these attempts, Defendant continued to feel isolated and suffered from her disabilities. As a result, Dr. Parikh “recommended . . . that she should stop isolating herself and get involved with some activities outside of the house which may include . . . going to hospitals, going to Red Cross, going to any place, including any place where she felt comfortable.” (Id. at PageID# 1846–47.) At the same time, Dr. Parikh was concerned that Defendant’s psychosis would prevent her from getting involved with activities outside of the home. He recommended that Defendant visit her family’s boutique to get out of the house and interact with others in a safe and comfortable environment. He believed that such an environment 4 No. 13-3315 would be a lot more flexible [than other options]. If she was there, if she has to go to bathroom for three times in an hour, [which was related to her disability,] that wouldn’t impair or prevent her from doing that. It would be a situation where she can come and go. It wouldn’t be more stress for her because that’s one thing that had happened was isolation was opposite of what we wanted. We wanted her to be in a safe place where she would have flexibility and she could come and go and do whatever is necessary . . . . (Id. at PageID# 1848–49.) Throughout his testimony, Dr. Parikh maintained that he believed Defendant was unable to work throughout the entire relevant time period. He explained that although Defendant may have performed some work-related activities while visiting her family’s boutiques, Defendant would not have been able to do the same work in any other place of employment. Both Defendant and the Government presented a number of other witnesses and additional evidence during the trial.