Britt v. Agape Baptist Church, Inc., et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KATHLEEN BRITT, individually and
As the Surviving Parent of Jason Britt, and
As Personal Representative on behalf of
JASON BRITT, deceased
Plaintiffs,
v.
AGAPE BAPTIST CHURCH INC., d/b/a
AGAPE BOARDING SCHOOL,
JULIO SANDOVAL, individually and in his
role As Dean of Students for Agape Boarding
School,
SAFE, SOUND AND SECURE YOUTH
MINISTRIES, INC.,
BRENT JACKSON, Individually and in his role
as Vocational Director and Staff Member for
Agape Boarding School,
SCOTT DUMAR, Individually and in his role
as Medical Director, Member of the Board of
Directors and Staff Member for Agape Boarding
School,
JON WILKE, Individually and in his role as
Staff Member for Agape Boarding School,
DAVID WILSON, Individually and in his role
as Staff Member for Agape Boarding School,
ROBERT GRAVES, Individually and in his
role as Staff Member at Agape Boarding School,
and Individually and as Deputy Sheriff for
Cedar County, State of Missouri,
CEDAR COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
JAMES “JIMBOB” McCRARY, SHERIFF, in
his Individual and Official Capacity,
Defendants.
Case No.: 	6:23-cv-03316-MDH
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 23

2
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Robert Graves, Sheriff James “Jimbob” McCrary and Cedar
County’s (“Cedar County Defendants”) Motion to Exclude/Daubert Motion to exclude all
testimony of Plaintiff’s disclosed expert Dr. Stephen Peterson, MD (“Dr. Peterson”) as it relates to
the Cedar County Defendants (Doc. 171). Additionally, Defendant Agape Baptist Church
(“Agape”) has also filed a Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Peterson. (Doc.
173). 	Cedar 	County 	Defendants 	filed 	Suggestions 	in Support 	(Doc. 	172), 	Plaintiff 	filed
Suggestions in Opposition to both motions (Doc. 180), and Cedar County Defendants have filed a
reply. (Doc. 186). Defendant Agape has failed to file a reply and the time to do so has elapsed. The
motions are now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Cedar County
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude/Daubert Motion is GRANTED and Defendant Agape’s Motion to
Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Peterson is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
BACKGROUND
This is a wrongful death case where Plaintiff Kathleen Britt, alleges that child abuse
inflicted upon her son Jason Britt (“Decedent”) at Agape Boarding school from 2009 to 2010 lead
to his death more than ten years later. Dr. Peterson is Plaintiff’s sole expert designed to address
medical causation. Dr. Peterson created a Diagnostic Record Review (“Report”) in this case where
he opines on his findings, discussion and causation stemming from articles from the Kansas City
Star, the Decedent’s Suicide Note, and the documents filed in this case. Dr. Peterson’s Report was
submitted on May 9, 2025. Additionally, Dr. Peterson was deposed in this matter and asked about
his Report and other matters related to his conclusions. 	Both Cedar County Defendants and
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 23

3
Defendant Agape bring separate motions looking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Peterson. The
Court will take each of these motions in turn.
STANDARD
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court
interpreted the then-effective version of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to require
district courts to be certain that expert evidence based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge is “not only relevant, but reliable.” 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993). The district court must
make a “preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be
applied to the facts at issue.” Id. at 592–93.
Post-Daubert amendments to Rule 702 clarify the standard:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent
demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to the 2000 amendment
(“Rule 702 has been amended in response to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
to the many cases applying Daubert ….” (citations omitted)).
The Eight Circuit has expounded the Rule 702 standard. Proposed expert testimony must
meet three criteria to be admissible under Rule 702. “First, evidence based on scientific, technical,
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 23

4
or other specialized knowledge must be useful to the finder of fact in deciding the ultimate issue
of fact. This is the basic rule of relevance.” United States v. .55 Acres of Land, More or Less,
Situated in City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 4:22-CV-01050-SRC, 2024 WL 960941, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. Mar. 6, 2024) (quoting Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted)). “Second, the proposed witness must be qualified to assist the finder of act.”
Id. (citation omitted). “Third, the proposed evidence must be reliable or trustworthy in an
evidentiary sense, so that, if the finder of fact accepts it as true, it provides the assistance the finder
of fact requires.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To meet the third criterion,
the testimony must be “based on sufficient facts or data” and be “the product of reliable principles
and methods,” and the expert must have “reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts
of the case. Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Evid.
702(b)–(d))).
“Federal Rule of Evidence 702 reflects an attempt to liberalize the rules governing the
admission of expert testimony.” Shuck v. CNH Am., LLC, 498 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing
Lauzon, 270 F.3d at 686). The rule “favors admissibility if the testimony will assist the trier of
fact.” United States v. .55 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in City of St. Louis, Missouri, No.
4:22-CV-01050-SRC, 2024 WL 960941, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2024) (quoting Clark v. Heidrick,
150 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 1998)). Doubt regarding “whether an expert’s testimony will be useful
should generally be resolved in favor of admissibility.” Id. (citation and internal quotation
omitted).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Cedar County Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 23

5
Cedar County Defendants argue that Dr. Peterson’s testimony is inadmissible against them.
Specifically, Cedar County Defendants argue that Dr. Peterson admitted that he lacked facts to
form an opinion against Defendants McCrary, Graves or Cedar County, Missouri at his deposition
and that any such opinion would be speculative. Cedar County Defendants assert that because Dr.
Peterson does not have facts showing whether the Cedar County Defendants had any involvement
in any acts or omissions leading to Jason Britt’s death, that Dr. Peterson’s testimony on this point
would not be helpful to the jury to understand any facts or issues relevant to this case. Lastly, Cedar
County Defendants argue that Plaintiff disclosed no further opinions to the County Defendants
regarding their causing Jason Britt’s death, or causing him any harm, and the May 9, 2025, expert
designation deadline and discovery deadlines have passed. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to supplement
any disclosures of Dr. Peterson.
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Peterson’s opinions are that the abuse that Jason Britt suffered at
Agape Boarding School caused Jason Britt to use methamphetamine, other illicit drugs and high
doses of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, which caused his death.
Plaintiff states that Dr. Peterson’s opinion that the gang rape and other abuse at Agape caused Jason
Britt’s death and that proof that Plaintiff provides that Defendant Graves was part of the gang rape
and other abuse at Agape would fall within Dr. Peterson’s opinion. Plaintiff does concede that Dr.
Peterson did not mention Defendant McCrary specifically, but posited that those who colluded
with Agape were complicit in the damage caused to Jason Britt. Plaintiff argues that Defendant
McCrary’s testified that during his tenure as both a law enforcement officer and as Sheriff, there
were no ‘investigations” whenever children ran away from Agape, and those kids were just
returned. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Peterson’s opined that if Cedar County law enforcement was
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 5 of 23

6
forcing the children back to Agape, it acted to silence the boys and would have contributed to cause
the Decedent’s death.
A. 	Defendant McCrary
The Report and deposition testimony provided by Dr. Peterson would not assist the trier of
fact as it relates to Defendant McCrary. Nowhere within Dr. Peterson’s Report does he mention
Defendant McCrary by name or allude to personal wrongdoing by Defendant McCrary. (Doc.180-
2). Additionally, during Dr. Peterson’s deposition, he was asked whether he had formed an opinion
regarding Defendant McCrary which shows the following conversation:
Q. 	In those pleadings if you look there will be statements and agreements that
Sheriff McCrary did not become the sheriff of Cedar County until 2017. So
assuming that is correct, are you going to offer any opinions regarding Sheriff
McCrary at the trial of this case?
A. 	I’m going to say provisionally I can’t answer one way or the other because
I don’t know what the other -- what the depositions of the people who worked at
Agape say at this point. I don’t know Sheriff McCrary’s involvement prior to
becoming sheriff.
Q. 	And you haven’t seen anything at least as of today’s date that would allow
you to have formed an opinion regarding Sheriff McCrary; is that fair?
A. 	Yes, one way or the other. I mean, I have Mr. Dudley and Mr. Britt’s
statements that some of the men were either sworn officers or volunteer officers or
something like that and that’s a red flag, but I don’t have the full data yet.
Q. 	Okay. So as you sit here today, you have no opinions about Sheriff McCrary
but to be fair to you it sounds like if you do additional work in this case, that may
or may not change. Is that right?
A. 	That’s absolutely correct.
(Doc. 172-1, page 10 line 3 - page 11 line 6). While Dr. Peterson has opined about the alleged
trauma that was inflicted upon Jason Britt while at Agape, nothing within his Report or deposition
would assist the trier of fact in finding Defendant McCrary’s role with either the Cedar County
Sheriff’s Department or Agape from 2009 to 2010. For these reasons, Cedar County Defendants’
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 6 of 23

7
Daubert Motion to exclude all testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Peterson as it relates to Defendant
McCrary is GRANTED.
B. 	Defendant Graves
The Report and deposition testimony provided by Dr. Peterson would not assist the trier of
fact as it relates to Defendant Graves. Nowhere within Dr. Peterson’s Report does he mention
Defendant Graves by name or allude to personal wrongdoing by Defendant Graves personally.
(Doc.180-2). Additionally, during Dr. Peterson’s deposition, he was asked about whether he had
formed an opinion regarding Defendant Graves which shows the following conversation:
Q. 	Okay. Robert Graves did not become a deputy with the Cedar County
Sheriff’s Department until 2017. Did you recall seeing that in the pleadings?
A. 	If that’s a matter of fact, that’s accurate. I don’t remember the specific date.
Q. 	Okay. Well, assuming that that is an accurate fact, then you would not have
any opinion that Robert Graves as a deputy of Cedar County had any interaction or
caused any abuse or the death of Jason Britt; correct?
…
A. 	Yes, my answer is that it was my impression that several of the deputies in
Cedar County had either been volunteer officers before they were formal deputies.
I did not parcel that out in my assessment of Jason Britt. If they were in fact under
some code of law enforcement conduct while they were at Agape, while they
worked or volunteered at Agape or participated in keeping students at Agape, then
I would think that would be relevant. If they had absolutely no contact with Agape,
didn’t work there, didn’t volunteer there, had nothing, then that would reduce the
likelihood that I would think they would be culpable. But at this point I haven’t
seen their depositions, I don’t know some of that information. I remain open to the
possibility both that they had a larger role as law enforcement or they maybe didn’t
have any role at all.
…
Q. 	As you sit here today are you prepared to offer any testimony regarding
Robert Graves causing any physical abuse and/or the death of Jason Britt?
A. 	Again, I told you earlier, I would love to see -- I would hold my opinion
until I see his deposition.
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 7 of 23

8
(Doc. 172-1, page 14 lines 4 - page 15 line 25). While Dr. Peterson has opined about the alleged
trauma that was inflicted upon Jason Britt while at Agape, nothing within his Report or deposition
would assist the trier of fact in finding Defendant Graves’ role with either the Cedar County
Sheriff’s Department or Agape from 2009 to 2010. For these reasons, Cedar County Defendants’
Daubert Motion to exclude all testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Peterson as it relates to Defendant
Graves is GRANTED.
C. 	Defendant Cedar County, Missouri
The Report and deposition testimony provided by Dr. Peterson would not assist the trier of
fact as it relates to Defendant Cedar County, Missouri. In Dr. Peterson’s Report he talks about the
role that Cedar County law enforcement played regarding Jason Britt’s mentality. Specifically, the
Report states “[t]hese reinforced that nothing was within his control to escape form Agape
Boarding School. Not even the police would help him escape the damaging abuses he was
experiencing, thereby heightening his sense of captivity.” (Doc. 180-2, page 10). The Report
further asserts:
In addition, those who acted to collude with Agape Boarding School, such as Cedar
County law enforcement officers who were also employed by Agape, were
complicit in the damages caused to Jason Britt. Such officers were mandated
report[er]s with a role to protect vulnerable children.
(Doc. 180-2, Page 13). 	During Dr. Peterson’s deposition, he was asked about whether he had
formed an opinion regarding Defendant Cedar County, Missouri which shows the following
conversation:
Q. 	Would your opinion right now as we sit here today be that you don’t have
an opinion regarding the actions of Cedar County, Missouri as it relates to abuse of
and/or causing the death of Jason Britt but that you would reserve that until further
time; is that accurate?
A. 	That’s almost accurate. My sense is that kids at -- if they left -- if they
escaped from Agape that the police would bring them back and so that’s why the
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 8 of 23

9
big question mark is there. And I would say that if that’s accurate, if kids eloped
from Agape because of being treated cruelly and the officers didn’t listen to them
and took them back, then yes they would have a role and I would have opinions
about that.
Q. 	Jason Britt never escaped, did he?
A. 	No, but Mr. Dudley did. And so in terms of context, it raises the question
that if he felt that way, then other kids may have felt that way and so that’s why I
wanted to reserve and hear what the deposition says.
Q. 	And Mr. Dudley, he’s not a party to this case, is he?
A. 	No. His information is certainly background.
Q. 	But with respect to Jason Britt, his abuse and his death, there is no evidence
regarding him trying to escape that would have put Cedar County into I guess a
liability box like you were talking about with Mr. Dudley; is that fair?
A. 	Unfortunately I think -- I’m not a lawyer but I think liability issues, that may
be a legal question about liability. In terms of the mindset that they -- that you
couldn’t escape, that would be a psychiatric or a psychological element which I
would want to explore.
Q. 	As we sit here today do you have an opinion that Cedar County, Missouri
caused or contributed to cause Jason Britt’s death?
A. 	I haven’t ruled out that they did contribute -- they caused or contributed to
cause if that is in fact accurate that they would take kids back.
Q. 	Okay. Well, this case isn’t about kids plural, it’s about Jason Britt; correct?
A. 	Yes. I’m sorry, I completely agree with you it’s about Jason Britt. I
understand that, I’m just saying I have wider information that suggests that there
was a mindset of Agape staff that kids couldn’t -- that if they left they would either
-- they would be punished -- or be punished if they left but they would also be
brought back by police. I may have -- that may be from The Kansas City Star article.
But at the time I wrote my report I did not have the statements of any of the Cedar
County staff, that’s why I’m being equivocal with you. And I don’t -- I’m not trying
to be, you know, evasive, I’m just telling you that in my mind, having evaluated
many children who are sexually and physically abused, if it is accurate that they
felt the police would bring them back if they escaped, then that is a variable that
will keep them quiet and keep them from -- and that would have been operative for
Jason Britt.
(Doc. 172-1, page 16 line 5 - page 18 line 21). In review of Dr. Peterson’s Report and deposition,
Dr. Peterson does not form an opinion whether Cedar County, Missouri caused or contributed to
cause Jason Britt’s death. Dr. Peterson concedes that Jason Britt did not try to escape or that Jason
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 9 of 23

10
Britt had the mentality that may impose liability upon Cedar County, Missouri. For these reasons,
Cedar County Defendants’ Daubert Motion to exclude all testimony of Plaintiff’s expert relating
to Cedar County, Missouri is GRANTED.
D. 	Dr. Peterson’s Supplemental Report
Cedar 	County 	Defendants 	argue 	that 	Plaintiff 	filed 	“Plaintiff’s 	Opposition 	to All
Defendants’ Motions to Exclude Dr. Stephen Peterson as Expert Witness” and attached, among
other exhibits, a 13-page document prepared by her retained expert, Dr. Peterson entitled
“Response to Daubert Motions” (“Supplemental Report). Cedar County Defendants argue this
Supplemental Report should be stricken because it has been provided to defense counsel after
Plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline, May 9, 2025, and after the close of all discovery, August 1,
2025. In support Cedar County Defendants assert that Plaintiff first provided this Supplemental
Report on September 23, 2025, well after her deadline to do so and too late to supplement the
disclosures.1
Pursuant to the Third Amended Scheduling Order (“Scheduling Order”) Plaintiff “shall
designate any expert witnesses on or before May 9, 2025.” (Doc. 111, page 3). “The expert’s
testimony will be limited to opinions and information contained in the report and in any depositions
that might be taken.” Id. Further, the Scheduling Order ruled that discovery would close in this
case on August 1, 2025. Id.
Here, Dr. Peterson’s Response to Daubert Motions is considered untimely. As reflected in
the record, Plaintiff filed her Suggestions in Opposition, including Dr. Peterson’s Response to
1 Plaintiff was unable to rebut this argument as it was first raised in Cedar County Defendant’s Reply Brief based upon
the addition of Plaintiff’s inclusion of Dr. Peterson’s Response to Daubert Motions filed with Plaintiff’s Suggestions
in Opposition.
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 10 of 23

11
Daubert Motions, on September 23, 2025. (Doc. 180). This filing was made approximately four
and a half months after her expert deadline and over a month and a half after the close of discovery.
(Doc. 111). Plaintiff made no effort to supplement Dr. Peterson’s Report, nor ask for any extensions
of the deadlines. Plaintiff should have been aware that further supplementation was needed as Dr.
Peterson acknowledged in his Report that he would need to corroborate his findings with the
medical records that had yet to be delivered to him before the expert deadline. (Doc. 180-2).
Instead, Plaintiff waited until a Daubert motion was filed to address the deficiencies outlined by
Defendants in this matter. As the Scheduling Order explicitly states that the “expert’s testimony
will be limited to opinions and information contained in the report and in any depositions that
might be taken” the Court will hold Plaintiff to that standard. For the reasons stated, Cedar County
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Response to Daubert Motions is GRANTED.
II. 	Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Testimony
Defendant Agape argues that Dr. Peterson’s opinions are not based on sufficient facts or
data. Specifically, Defendant Agape argues that Dr. Peterson’s opinions are based on a two-and-a-
half-hour hearsay interview of the Decedent’s mother; reliance on unsworn journalistic accounts
as “background”; the Report was missing core medical records for causation; and the Report
concedes that Dr. Peterson cannot formulate an actual DSM-5-TR diagnoses. Defendant Agape
further argues that Dr. Peterson’s Report cites literature that does not do what Dr. Peterson asks of
it; the medical-causation opinions exceed his basis and rest on non-record internet summaries; and
that there exists a fee/interest bias. The Court will evaluate each of these arguments in turn.
A. 	Sufficient Facts or Data
i. 	Interview with Plaintiff
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 11 of 23

12
Defendant Agape argues that Dr. Peterson’s Report is based on a two-and-a-half-hour
hearsay interview of Jason Britt’s mother is the linchpin factual source. Defendant Agape asserts
that Dr. Peterson relies heavily on a single collateral interview rather than clinical examination,
testing, or treating records. Plaintiff does not argue these points directly within her briefing;
however, she has provided the Court with Dr. Peterson’s Response to Daubert Motions. (Doc. 180-
3). As the Court has already struck Dr. Peterson’s Response to Daubert Motions it will proceed
without the aid of Plaintiff’s argument on this issue.
Federal Rule of Evidence 703 allows “an expert [to] rely on otherwise inadmissible hearsay
evidence in forming his opinion if the facts and data upon which he relies are of a type reasonably
relied upon by experts in his field.” Giger Welding & Fabrication, LLC v. DFW Movers &
Erectors, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-00741-DGK, 2026 WL 382905, at *5 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 11, 2026)
(quoting Brennan v. Reinhart Institutional Foods, 211 F.3d 449, 450 (8th Cir. 2000)) (citations
omitted).
The interview Dr. Peterson conducted with Plaintiff has sufficient facts or data that
generally concerns a Diagnostic Record Review. To properly perform a Diagnostic Record Review,
it is expected that an expert would rely on interviews with various individuals to get an
understanding regarding an individual’s mental state. Here, Dr. Peterson’s interview with the
Plaintiff, Jason Britt’s mother, would be the type of interview expected by an expert in this field.
Further, Dr. Peterson’s Report establishes that besides his two-and-a-half-hour interview with
Plaintiff, Dr. Peterson’s Report was also based on 69 different materials used in part to create his
Report. (Doc. 180-2, pages 2-4). Dr. Peterson’s Curriculum Vitae establishes he is a psychiatrist
with over 39 years of experience in the field of psychiatry and forensic psychiatry and has
demonstrated doing these types of Diagnostic Record Reviews. (Doc. 180-1). 	Based on Dr.
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 12 of 23

13
Peterson’s experience, his Report and Federal Rule of Evidence 703, the Court finds that Dr.
Peterson’s interview with Plaintiff had sufficient facts or data for the purpose of a Diagnostic
Record Review. For that reason, Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude as it relates to Dr.
Peterson’s interview with the Plaintiff is DENIED. However, Defendants will be given ample
opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff and Dr. Peterson regarding their two-and-a-half
interview and the basis for which Dr. Peterson attributed the findings of his report based on said
interview. Further, whether hearsay information relayed to Dr. Peterson will be admitted as
substantive evidence to stand as the basis of a verdict will be evaluated at trial on an item-by-item
basis.
ii. 	Journalistic Accounts
Defendant Agape asserts that media articles appear on Dr. Peterson’s material index and
were expressly referenced during the Report and deposition. Defendant Agape argues that reliance
on unsworn journalistic accounts as “background” does not supply sufficient facts or data when
the same propositions are, if at all, provable through medical or forensic records. Plaintiff states
that Defendant Agape is presumably concerned that Dr. Peterson is basing his opinion that Jason
Britt was sexually abused at Agape solely on the Kansas City Star articles. However, Plaintiff
argues that Dr. Peterson specifically documented medical records that support the allegation in the
matter that all set forth in varying detail the sexual abuse alleged at Agape Boarding School.
Plaintiff further argues that Dr. Peterson also testified that the collateral interviews impacted his
opinions with regard to the alleged rapes themselves.
Dr. Peterson’s use of the Kansas City Star articles in his Report was not based on sufficient
facts and data. Dr. Peterson’s Report denotes two Kansas City Star articles, one dated July 22,
2022, and another dated November 7, 2023. (Doc. 180-2, page 3). Dr. Peterson references the
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 13 of 23

14
Kansas City Star article within his discussion of mental disease or defect stating “as a consequence
of the [childhood sexual assault], Jason described to his mother and in the June 12, 2021 (updated
July 22, 2022) KC Star article events that would fulfill criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD). (Doc. 180-2, page 9). In Dr. Peterson’s deposition he was asked why he would include
the Kansas City Star articles in which the conversation went as follows:
Q. 	Would you agree that your psychological autopsy in this case is based in
part on a Kansas City newspaper article?
A. 	In terms of the -- in terms of my final opinion it’s background information,
it did not supersede any of the medical information.
Q. 	I mean, you wouldn’t do a psychological autopsy and base your opinion
based on some media account, I take it?
A. 	Oh, I most certainly didn’t and wouldn’t. I would reference anything that I
read in a newspaper article to facts or persons I could talk to.
Q. 	And if you didn’t in this case and you wouldn’t rely on media as part of a
psychological autopsy, then I wonder why in your file you’ve got media reports
from The Kansas City Star?
A. 	Well, it provides context, it doesn’t -- that’s why. There’s information that
may not be available any other way but it doesn’t provide necessarily final
information.
(Doc. 180-4, page 5 lines 16 - page 6 line 11). In review of Dr. Peterson’s Report, the use of
information derived from the Kansas City Star articles does not contain facts or data that are the
type reasonably relied upon by experts. As emphasized in Dr. Peterson’s Deposition above, the use
of media accounts would not be the type reasonably relied on by experts within Dr. Peterson’s
field. While Dr. Peterson attempts to downplay the role these articles had within his Report, the
articles are still hearsay as they are an out-of-court statement not made under oath and not subject
to cross-examination by the opposing party. As these articles do not contain sufficient facts and
data upon which experts in Dr. Peterson’s field would rely, the Court finds those references and
information derived from the Kansas City Star articles to be improper. For these reasons,
Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony with respect to his use of
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 14 of 23

15
journalistic accounts is GRANTED. Those references and information that were derived from the
Kansas City Star articles are hereby stricken.
iii. 	Core Medical Records
Defendant Agape argues that core medical records are missing for causation. Specifically,
Defendant Agape argues that Dr. Peterson acknowledges that key cardiovascular/nephrology
records from St. Luke’s and St. Alphonsus were not yet available and that any causation discussion
would be deferred until after review of those records. Defendant Agape states that the absence of
those underlying medical records underscores the analytical gap between Dr. Peterson’s limited
factual basis and his broad causation conclusions arguing it should be excluded. Plaintiff argues
that Dr. Peterson did indicate in his Report that the general causation would require confirmation
from the medical records, that although requested, had not yet been received at the time of his
Report. Plaintiff states that the medical records were subsequently received, and Dr. Peterson did
confirm in his deposition that the records confirmed his opinions on general causation.
Dr. Peterson’s Report has been supported by his deposition testimony. Plaintiff is correct
that at the time Dr. Peterson filed his Report he did not have access to the medial records from St.
Luke’s or St. Alphonsus.2 However, Dr. Peterson was provided with those records and reviewed
them before his deposition. (Doc. 172-1, page 20 line 21- page 21, line 12). As Dr. Peterson’s
deposition testimony shows, he was able to review the core medical records in this case and
provide an opportunity for Defendants to depose him on the issue. For the reasons stated,
2 Dr. Peterson noted he would have to confirm with the St. Luke’s and St. Alphonsus records. (Doc. 180-2, pages 9-
10).
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 15 of 23

16
Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony based on a lack of sufficient facts
and data as to the core medical records is DENIED.
iv. 	Formulation of Diagnoses
Defendant Agape argues that Dr. Peterson concedes he cannot diagnose Jason Britt and that
Dr. Peterson’s provisional descriptions are not reliably applied. Defendant Agape asserts that Dr.
Peterson’s Report repeats his findings are “provisional through highly likely.” Defendant Agape
argues that this concession underscores that Dr. Peterson did not, and on his methodology cannot,
formulate actual DSM-5-TR diagnoses here. Plaintiff argues that the American Psychiatric
Association Rules of Professional Ethics prevents the offering of professional opinions based on
publicly available information without conducting an examination. However, Plaintiff argues that
the opinion also states that the rendering of opinions and expertise in forensic and consultative
roles is permissible because the work is conducted within an evaluative framework including
parameters for how and where the information may be used or disseminated. Plaintiff states that
Dr. Peterson carefully delineated that he could not provide a “diagnosis” of Jason Britt because he
is deceased and cannot now be interviewed. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Peterson was able to conduct
a Psychiatric Autopsy which was the foundation for his opinion that Jason Britt had DSM-5-TR
Child Sexual Abuse and DSM-5-TR Posttraumatic Stress Disorder due to his time at Agape.
The American Psychiatric Association Ethics Committee formulated an opinion regarding
whether a psychiatrist may give an opinion about an individual in the public eye when the
psychiatrist, in good faith, believes that the individual poses a threat to the country or national
security. While not a direct comparison to the case at hand, it provides a useful insight into the
ethics governing whether Dr. Peterson may give a diagnosis or opinion in this case. The APA Ethics
Committee stated in relevant part:
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 16 of 23

17
Section 7.3 of The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially
Applicable to Psychiatry (sometimes called the “The Goldwater Rule”) explicitly
states that psychiatrists may share expertise about psychiatric issues in general but
that it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion about an
individual 	based 	on 	publicly 	available 	information 	without 	conducting 	an
examination. Making a diagnosis, for example, would be rendering a professional
opinion. However, a diagnosis is not required for an opinion to be professional.
Instead, when a psychiatrist renders an opinion about the affect, behavior, speech,
or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise,
and/or 	knowledge inherent 	in 	the practice of 	psychiatry, 	the opinion 	is 	a
professional one. Thus, saying that a person does not have an illness is also a
professional opinion.
Psychiatrists have also argued that the “Goldwater Rule” is not sound because
psychiatrists 	are 	sometimes 	asked 	to 	render 	opinions 	about 	conducting 	an
examination of an individual. Examples occur, in particular, in certain forensic
cases and consultative roles. This objection attempts to subsume the rule with its
exceptions. What this objection misses, however, is that the rendering of expertise
and/or an opinion in these contexts is permissible because there is a court
authorization for the examination (or an opinion without examination), and this
work is conducted within an evaluative framework including parameters for how
and where the information may be used or disseminated. In addition, any evaluation
conduced or opinion rendered based on methodology that departs from the
established practice of an in-person evaluation must clearly identify the methods
used and the limitations of those methods, such as the absence of an in-person
examination.
(Doc. 180-5, pages 2-3).
Dr. Peterson’s Report is supported by sufficient facts and data concerning his opinion
regarding whether Jason Britt exhibited symptoms consistent with DSM-5-TR Child Sexual Abuse
and DSM-5-TR- Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Dr. Peterson within his Report and in his
deposition remarked that he could not make a diagnosis because of the governing ethics rule as he
could not personally interview Jason Britt. However, Dr. Peterson does note within his Report that
“[i]n Jason Britt’s situation, his treatment at Agape Boarding School caused symptoms that were
undeniably consistent with severe anxiety disorder, depression (suicidal ideation; attempt),
posttraumatic stress disorder, sleep disorder, and high risk for suicide attempts.” (Doc. 180-2, page
12). Although Dr. Peterson cannot make a formal diagnosis, he has made an opinion noting that
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 17 of 23

18
these symptoms are consistent with the disorders cited above and are backed by sufficient facts
and data as delineated in the Report and talked about in his deposition. For these reasons,
Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony based on the inability to formulate
a diagnosis is DENIED.
B. 	Literature
Defendant Agape argues that the literature cited in Dr. Peterson’s Report does not provide
a basis for the conclusions ascertained from those sources. Defendant Agape challenges three
citations in Dr. Peterson’s Report. Plaintiff does not argue these points directly within her briefing
and the Court has already struck Dr. Peterson’s Response to Daubert Motions. Thus, the Court will
analyze these articles separately without a response from the Plaintiff.
i. 	Complex Trauma in Adolescents and Adults
Defendant Agape argues that the citation of Briere & Scott, Complex Trauma in
Adolescents and Adults: Effects and Treatment, 38 Psychiatric Clinics of North America 515
(2015) does not provide a validated method for post-hoc diagnosing a decedent without
examination or records, nor for attributing a later cerebrovascular event to complex PTSD.
Dr. Peterson’s reliance on Complex Trauma in Adolescents and Adults: Effects and
Treatment was not appropriately used in his Report. Here, Dr. Peterson’s Report states:
First, Jason experienced Complex Trauma due to four months of traumatic
experiences 	that 	included 	physical 	assault, 	rape, 	and
emotional/nutritional/interpersonal torture when he was a 16-year-old (Complex
Trauma in Adolescents and Adults: Effects and Treatment (Briere and Scott;
Psychiatric Clinics of North America; 2015; in press).
(Doc. 180-2, page 10). The passage cited from Dr. Peterson’s Report shows the only citation of the
challenged article. From a plain reading of the Report, it stands for the proposition that Jason Britt
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 18 of 23

19
suffered complex trauma. However, Dr. Peterson never adduces what complex trauma is within
the Report or how the cited article contributes to that understanding. Here, Dr. Peterson skips to
the factual application without providing any foundational support for the article cited. For this
reason, Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s use of Complex Trauma in
Adolescents and Adults: Effects and Treatment is GRANTED. The cited article as shown in the
above paragraph will be stricken.
ii. 	Sexual Abuse and Lifetime Diagnosis of Psychiatric Disorders
Defendant Agape argues that Dr. Peterson’s reliance on Chen et al., Sexual Abuse and
Lifetime Diagnosis of Psychiatric Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 85 Mayo
Clinic Proceedings 618 (2010) does not establish causation in an individual case or validate
psychological-autopsy diagnoses absent clinical evaluation and records.
Dr. Peterson’s reliance on Sexual Abuse and Lifetime Diagnosis of Psychiatric Disorders;
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis was appropriately used in his Report. Dr. Peterson’s Report
states:
Fifth, children who experience sexual abuse are at high risk for psychiatric
disorders 	(Sexual Abuse 	and 	Lifetime 	Diagnoses 	of 	Psychiatric 	Disorders;
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis; Chen et. al.; Mayo Clinic Proceedings; July
2010: 85 (7) 618-629). By way of example, in more than 3,100,000 participants,
there was a statistically significant association between sexual abuse and lifetime
diagnoses of anxiety disorder, depression, eating disorders, posttraumatic stress
disorder, sleep disorders, and suicide attempts. These associations persisted
regardless of the victim sex, or age when the abuse occurred. Associations between
sexual abuse and depression, eating disorders, and PTSD were strengthened by
history of rape.
(Doc. 180-2, pages 11-12). The passage cited from Dr. Peterson’s Report shows the only citation
of the challenged article. From a plain reading of the Report, it stands for the proposition of
highlighting the association between sexual abuse and lifetime diagnoses. Dr. Peterson does not
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 19 of 23

20
attempt to use this article to establish causation or validate psychological-autopsy diagnoses absent
clinical evaluation and records. In this context the Court finds this article serves its purpose and
does not create a reason to exclude this proposition from Dr. Peterson’s Report. For the reasons
stated, Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s use of Sexual Abuse and Lifetime
Diagnosis of Psychiatric Disorders; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis is DENIED.
iii. 	Factors Associated with Delays of Days to Decades to Criminal Prosecutions of
Child Sexual Abuse
Defendant Agape argues that Dr. Peterson’s citation of Connolly et al., Factors Associated
with Delays of Days to Decades to Criminal Prosecutions of Child Sexual Abuse, 33 Behavioral
Sciences & the Law 546 (2015) offers no methodology for diagnosing PTSD in a deceased adult
or attributing medical death causally to trauma.
Dr. Peterson’s reliance on Factors Associated with Delays of Days to Decades to Criminal
Prosecutions of Child Abuse was appropriately used in his Report. Dr. Peterson’s Report states:
Third, it is well known that children who do not immediately report episodes of
sexual abuse can suffer in silence for up to decades before they are able to overcome
the internal stigma of having been abused and disclose (Factors Associated with
Delays of Days to Decades to Criminal Prosecutions of Child Sexual Abuse;
Connolly, et al.; Behavioral Sciences and the Law; 2015; 33:546-560). Notably, for
adolescents (greater than 13 years old) who are sexually abused by someone who
has a community connection (such as at Agape Boarding School) delay to reporting
for male students can last as long as 19.24 years + almost 12 years.
(Doc. 180-2, page 11). The passage cited from Dr. Peterson’s Report shows the only citation of the
challenged article. From a plain reading of the Report, the article stands for the proposition that
children who do not immediate report sexual abuse can wait for decades before being able to
report. Dr. Peterson does not attempt to use this article to diagnose PTSD or attributing medical
death causally to trauma but to explain why a long lapse may accrue before an individual discloses
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 20 of 23

21
that abuse. In this context the Court finds the article serves its purpose and does not create a reason
to exclude this proposition from Dr. Peterson’s Report. 	For the reasons stated, Defendant Agape’s
Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s use of Factors Associated with Delays of Days to Decades to
Criminal Prosecutions of Child Abuse is DENIED.
C. 	Medical-Causation Opinion
Defendant Agape asserts that Dr. Peterson relies on a Medscape webpage to describe
systemic/cardiovascular effects of anabolic steroids and speculates that Jason Britt had two heart
attacks and stroke-related sequelae, while expressly awaiting St. Luke’s and St. Alphonsus medical
records. Defendant Agape argues this is not a reliable application of any psychiatric method to
case-specific facts and strays beyond his demonstrated foundation. Plaintiff states that Dr. Peterson
explained that Medscape is a well-regarded source of medical information, accessible on the
internet. Plaintiff argues that Medscape is a peer reviewed medical information platform that is
jointly accredited by the Accreditation Counsel for Continuing Medical Education (“ACCME”),
the American Nurses Credentialing Center (“ANCC”) and the Accreditation Counsel for Pharmacy
Education (“ACPE”) to pride continuing education for physicians, nurses and pharmacists.
Dr. Peterson’s medical-causation opinion relies upon a reliable methodology. In Dr.
Peterson’s Report, he qualified his answers in the mental disease or defect section by stating that
his findings would need to be confirmed with the St. Luke’s and St. Alphonsus medical records
which he had yet to receive as of the filing of his Report. (Doc. 180-2, pages 9-10). In researching
the unregulated anabolic androgenic steroid abuse Dr. Peterson utilized Medscape which is
accredited by the ACCME, ANCC and ACPE.3 Further, Dr. Peterson testified in his deposition that
3 Medscape, https://help.medscape.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001561071-Are-continuing-medical-education-CME-
CE-courses-on-Medscape-accredited (last visited Mar. 26, 2026).
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 21 of 23

22
once he received the medical records from St. Luke’s and St. Alphonsus, they confirmed his
findings in his original Report. (Doc. 180-4, page 8, lines 4-23). The court finds that Dr. Peterson’s
Medical-Causation opinion was based on a reliable methodology. For these reasons, Defendant
Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony regarding his medical-causation opinion is
DENIED.
D. 	Fee/Interest Bias
Defendant 	Agape 	states 	that 	Dr. 	Peterson 	charges 	$375 	an 	hour 	for
review/assessment/report writing and $400 an hour for testimony, with travel at $150 an hour.
Defendant Agape concedes that this compensation does not itself 	warrant exclusion but
underscores the need for rigorous Federal Rule of Evidence 702 gatekeeping given the
methodological and factual deficiencies noted within its briefing. Plaintiff does not argue these
points directly within her briefing; and the Court has already struck Dr. Peterson’s Response to
Daubert Motions. Thus, the Court will proceed on its analysis of this issue without the aid of
Plaintiff’s argument.
The Court finds that Dr. Peterson’s compensation is reasonable given the amount charged
for this kind of work in this area of the country. Nothing submitted in the briefing would lead this
Court to the conclusion that there is any inherent fee/interest bias presented by Dr. Peterson. For
this reason, Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony based on his fee or
interest bias is DENIED. Dr. Peterson’s fee may be explored in cross-examination.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Cedar County Defendants’ Motion to Exclude/Daubert Motion is
GRANTED. Dr. Peterson may not opine that Defendant McCrary, Graves or Cedar County,
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 22 of 23

23
Missouri caused or contributed to cause Jason Britt’s death and Dr. Peterson’s Response to Daubert
Motion is stricken.
Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Dr. Peterson is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr.
Peterson’s Testimony based on a lack of sufficient facts and data as to the interview with Plaintiff,
core medical records and formulation of diagnosis are DENIED. Defendant Agape’s Motion to
Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony with respect to his use of journalistic accounts is GRANTED.
Those references and information that were derived from the Kansas City Star articles are hereby
stricken and may not be referenced to or used as the basis of, or as support for, Dr. Peterson’s
testimony. Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony based on the article
Complex Trauma in Adolescents and Adults: Effects and Treatment, 38 Psychiatric Clinics of
North America 515 (2015) is GRANTED. The cited article in Dr. Peterson’s Report will be
stricken. Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony based on the articles
Sexual Abuse and Lifetime Diagnosis of Psychiatric Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis, 85 Mayo Clinic Proceedings 618 (2010) and Factors Associated with Delays of Days to
Decades to Criminal Prosecutions of Child Sexual Abuse, 33 Behavioral Sciences & the Law 546
(2015) are DENIED. Defendant Agape’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Peterson’s Testimony based on
medical-causation opinion and fee/interest bias are also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:23-cv-03316-MDH Document 191 Filed 04/02/26 Page 23 of 23