Peter Breggin - Expert Witness

Expert Witness

On September 16, 2011 in Winnipeg, Canada, a Provincial judge cited Breggin’s testimony in concluding that Prozac caused a sixteen-year-old boy to knife a friend to death, noting that, "Dr. Breggin's explanation of the effect Prozac was having on C.J.P.'s behavior both before that day and in committing an impulsive, inexplicable violent act that day corresponds with the evidence." About the boy, Judge Robert Heinrichs determined, "His basic normalcy now further confirms he no longer poses a risk of violence to anyone and that his mental deterioration and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac."

In South Carolina, Breggin testified on behalf of Peggy S. Salters, a psychiatric nurse who sued her doctors and Palmetto Baptist Hospital after ECT left her incapacitated in 2000. A jury found in favor of her and awarded her $635,177 in actual damages.

Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. Breggin later claimed that this was because the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors. The Supreme Court of Kentucky concluded that the Wesbecker trial had been secretly settled by Eli Lilly before going to the jury in return for defendants presenting a weakened case that was bound to lose. Trial Judge Potter was empowered by the Kentucky Supreme Court to change the verdict from a jury verdict in favor of Eli Lilly to "settled with prejudice" by Eli Lilly.

Breggin alleges that pharmaceutical manufacturers, particularly Eli Lilly, have committed ad hominem attacks upon him in the form of linking him to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs. Breggin acknowledges that he did work with Scientology starting in 1972, but states that by 1974 he "found opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics", and in consequence "stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason." Breggin has also stated that he has a personal reason to dislike Scientology: His wife, Ginger, was once a Scientologist, and when they first met she was urged by other Scientologists to have no association with him because he was not also.

Several judges have questioned Breggin's credibility as an expert witness. For example, a Maryland judge in a medical malpractice case in 1995 said, "I believe that his bias in this case is blinding... he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion." In that same year a Virginia judge excluded Breggin's testimony stating, "This court finds that the evidence of Peter Breggin, as a purported expert, fails nearly all particulars under the standard set forth in Daubert and its progeny.... Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science.'"

In 2002, Breggin was hired as an expert witness by a survivor of the Columbine High School massacre in a case against the makers of an anti-depressant drug. In his report, Breggin failed to mention the Columbine incident or one of the killers, instead focusing on the medication taken by the other, "...Eric Harris was suffering from a substance induced (Luvox-induced) mood disorder with depressive and manic features that had reached a psychotic level of violence and suicide. Absent persistent exposure to Luvox, Eric Harris probably would not have committed violence and suicide." However, according to The Denver Post, the judge of the case "...was visibly angry that the experts failed to view evidence prior to their depositions" even though they had months to do so. The evidence would have included hundreds of documents including a significant amount of video and audio tape that the killers had recorded. The judge stated, "...lawyers will be free to attack them on the basis of the evidence they haven't seen and haven't factored into their opinions." The lawsuit was eventually dropped with the stipulation that the makers of Luvox donate $10,000 to the American Cancer Society.

In 2005, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas disqualified the testimony of Breggin because it did not meet the scientific rigor established by the Frye standard. The judge stated "...Breggin spends 14 pages critiquing the treatment provided not because it ran counter to the acceptable standards of care, but because it ran counter to Breggin's personal ideas and ideologies of what the standards ought to be.”