Laserfiche WebLink
substantial or long-tem erotional distress. Dr. Nelsen testified <br />that in the face of such subjective complaints, a psychologist <br />looks for such objective corroboration. Finding none, he concluded <br />that any distress was not severe. <br />Moreover, there was no atterr.pt by plaintiff or their expert to <br />separate out the numrerous possible causes of stress in their lives <br />to establish a causal connection between the claimed distress and <br />the MPRS testing experience. For e.xample, both of the plaintiffs <br />had suffered family probie.ms, job rejections and employment <br />difficulties during the same time frame as the MPRS testing <br />experiences. Plaintiffs and Dr. Neal admitted that these are all <br />distress-prcduc-..tg experiences. But Dr. Neal failed to isolate out <br />and verify any causal connection between any distress experienced <br />and MPRS testing incidents. In fact, while Dr. Neal claimed that <br />there was a ti.me connection between certain stress symptoms and <br />MPRS testing occasions, on cross-examination he could not recall, <br />and his report does not miention, the dates of any of the MPRS <br />tests. For example, when asked how many times Fields had taken the <br />MPRS test. Dr. Neal answered that the number was "somewhere between <br />2 and 12". His approach to determine causation m.ay have had seme <br />validity, but he failed to do his homework. Plaintiffs have <br />t.herefore failed to establish causation for this element of their <br />claim. <br />18