There was a time when Judy and Jerry Liljedahl spent more time together. Judy worked as an unpaid secretary in Jerry's law practice following a determination that she qualified for disability social security. Prior to this, Judy had been a court reporter for the Social Security Administration. She alleged that Jerry encouraged and instructed her to obtain a disability pension, and advised her to stop going to her job as proof that she was too disabled to work. A Missouri appeals court would later comment on her "amazing candor" in claiming that she did not know that the basis for her alleged disability was depression until after the scheme succeeded. Judy told The Forensic Echo that in fact her depression had surfaced much earlier, but she was able to continue working. Her husband's legal expertise in obtaining benefits springboarded what she would have received anyway.
Judy and Jerry divorced after two years of marriage. She requested alimony because she was not able to support herself due to depression. At trial, no expert testimony regarding the severity of her condition was provided. Judy described for the court an unarguably difficult year. She was involved in a relationship with Richard Graves, a man who had allegedly furnished her with drugs and possibly, a black eye. She and Jerry briefly reconciled and Jerry taught her how to fire a gun from the hip. Judy was later living alone when Richard allegedly broke into her home. Judy told the judge presiding over her divorce matter that she shot her former boyfriend [twice from the hip]. She said that Jerry was the first person she contacted and, upon hearing the news, he replied "Good for you, I'm proud of you."
Judy told the trial court that she had been seeing a psychiatrist monthly and a psychologist weekly. She also said that she had not sought employment because she first had to "weigh the outcome of a lot of legal issues." Jerry appealed the award, arguing that Judy failed to show that she was unable to support herself due to her mental condition.
Holding: The award of alimony was vacated. Judy's claim of depression was described as conclusionary and lacking in evidentiary support, beyond her statement that she was depressed. Judy failed to show that she was unable to support herself through appropriate employment.
Editor's Note: Judy was charged with second degree murder for the death of Richard. Her trial is scheduled to begin in early September. She told The Forensic Echo that she continues to be depressed and remains unemployed.
Dr. Reid comments: Most depressive disorders are either eminently treatable or not globally disabling. Approximately 85% of new patients with the most severe depressions improve greatly and regain most or all functioning within a few weeks or months of modern treatment. Dysthymia, arguably the most difficult to treat of the common depressive disorders, is uncomfortable but rarely completely disabling.
"When testifying about prognosis, the expert should speak of the improvement to be expected, whether or not it is immediately available to the evaluee."
Access to good diagnosis and treatment is a problem for some patients. It is frustrating to see damage claimants or disability applicants who are acutely disabled by depression but have never been offered (or perhaps would not accept) adequate antidepressant care. This is clinically unfortunate, but usually does not render a person disabled for Social Security or other chronic purposes, any more than a broken leg which takes weeks or months to heal. When testifying about prognosis, the expert should speak of the improvement to be expected with good treatment, regardless of whether or not it is immediately available to the evaluee, and then comment as appropriate about the treatment opportunities in the given case.
Treatment professionals are often asked to provide support for patients' disability claims. However, clinicians should think twice before offering non-clinical support in the form of testifying in the patient's divorce proceeding. Both justice and the treatment relationship can suffer. The balance of treatment expectations is altered by the non-therapeutic act on the patient's behalf. Forensic involvement is neither therapeutic nor clinically neutral.
