CDC Reports Over 10,000 Children Under 4 Taking Amphetamines for ADHD / ADD, According to Dr. Tim Houchin, M.D.

Lexington, KY (PRWEB) May 20, 2014

In his May 16, 2014 article from the New York Times Alan Schwarz cited a recent government announcement that over 10,000 children ages 2 and 3 are being prescribed amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD / ADD. These numbers, presented by the Centers for Disease Control, highlight how readily pediatricians, psychiatrists and psychologists are doling out the diagnosis, according to Dr. Tim Houchin, M.D.

Medical schools used to teach that ADHD / ADD occurred in 3 – 5% of children. However, current CDC data from this map on their website clearly demonstrates that in some states the rate of ADHD is as high as 19%.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition, or DSM-5 specifies criteria for mental and emotional disorders. It clearly states that ADHD symptoms must be present in at least two settings such as home, school or work. But how many 2 year-olds even go to school? Should daycare be considered one of these settings?

Based upon the DSM-5 criteria it would seem that most 2 and 3 year-old children would not even be eligible for the diagnosis, yet the CDC clearly states children as young as 2 are being prescribed amphetamines for ADHD in large numbers. So why are pediatricians and mental health professionals so willing to diagnose ADHD in children this young? Furthermore, what explains the 300 – 400% increase in the diagnosis of ADHD in the past 2 decades?

Although there are no easy answers to these questions, the CDC website contains the article ADHD Throughout the Years, last updated May 16, 2013. An excerpt from the CDC article is provided below:

“It is not possible to tell whether this increase [in the rate of ADHD] represents a change in the number of children who have ADHD, or a change in the number of children who were diagnosed. Perhaps relatedly, the number of FDA-approved ADHD medications increased noticeably since the 1990s, after the introduction of long-acting formulations.”

Based on this information cited from the CDC report it is clear to Dr. Tim that the CDC has at least some suspicion that drug companies, seeking to market long-acting and profitable ADHD medications, are at least partly to blame for the dramatic rise in ADHD diagnoses. But in 2 year-olds?

To Dr. Tim’s knowledge there is absolutely no FDA-cleared, objective test for diagnosing ADHD in a 2 or 3 year-old child. None. Labeling 2 year-old children with ADHD, let alone placing them on amphetamines, is a very slippery slope in Dr. Tim’s opinion.

About Dr. Tim:

Dr. Tim Houchin is one of approximately 200 physicians in the United States to be triple board certified in psychiatry, child and adolescent psychiatry & forensic psychiatry. In addition to serving as an expert witness to various courts Dr. Tim is founder and president of 360 Mental Health Services, a comprehensive mental health diagnostic and treatment center based in Lexington, Kentucky.

More Expert Witness Press Releases

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit News: Federal Bard Trial Scheduled to be Retried July 29, Rottenstein Law Group LLP Reports

(PRWEB) July 29, 2013

The first federal bellwether trial for a Bard transvaginal mesh lawsuit was scheduled to start over today in Charleston, W.V., according to court documents. The Rottenstein Law Group LLP, a law firm that represents hundreds of transvaginal mesh plaintiffs, notes that the initial trial was declared a mistrial two weeks ago because of improper testimony from an expert witness.

Plaintiffs Dan and Donna Cisson allege that device manufacturer C.R. Bards Avaulta transvaginal mesh implant was designed defectively and caused Donna to suffer serious injury, according to court documents in Cisson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (MDL-2187; 2:11-cv-00195; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia).

We are pleased that the plaintiff has another opportunity for a trial, said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of the Rottenstein Law Group LLP.

Women who have filed vaginal mesh lawsuits allege that the devices have caused them to suffer several serious adverse side effects since implantation, including vaginal erosion. The mesh is used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Recent vaginal mesh awards included a 2012 verdict in California against Bard which resulted in a $ 5.5 million damages award* to the plaintiff and a 2013 verdict against Ethicon that resulted in an $ 11 million award** to a woman who alleged serious injury from her implant.

The Rottenstein Law Group LLP encourages those who believe they have suffered from the alleged side effects of their vaginal mesh implants to download a free informational brochure from its website. Those who believe their mesh has injured them will find instructions and procedures for filing a vaginal mesh lawsuit, in addition to more information about side effects.

* (July 24, 2012)

** (Feb. 28, 2013)


The Rottenstein Law Group LLP is a New York-based firm that represents clients nationwide in mass tort actions. The firm was founded by Rochelle Rottenstein, who has more than two decades of experience as a lawyer, to represent clients hurt by defective medical devices and medications. (Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)


The Rottenstein Law Group LLP

Rochelle Rottenstein, Esq.

321 W. 44th Street

# 804

New York NY 10036

(212) 933-9500 (office phone)

(212) 933-9980 (facsimile)

rochelle (at) rotlaw (dot) com


More Expert Witness Press Releases

The Importance of Word Choice in Expert Witness Reports

You’ve probably heard the phrase: “it’s not always just about you.” The expert report is not just an expression of your opinions for your own satisfaction. Before you qualifications it, you cannot realize how greatly the words you choose, and the way in which you form your sentences, will affect the legal results. Your attorneys and the opposing attorneys will look more closely at what you say and how you say it than any English teacher you ever had.
Quite simply, your attorney wants to be able to quote things you say to help him make his case. The opposing attorney would love to be able to quote things you say that are either wrong or poorly expressed. He would love for you to provide him with ammunition for cross examination. He wants to hear sentences or adjectives that make you sound uncertain, and that may even enable him to use your words to support opposing points of view.
Similarly, you will have the task of reading the opposing expert’s report and looking for weak technical work or wording that your retaining attorney can undermine or attack.

Your goal in reviewing the other expert’s report is to identify the technical strengths and weaknesses found there. This will help your attorney in his effort to discredit the other expert and/or his work. Knowing what to include in your own expert report should make obvious what omissions or errors to look for in the other expert’s report.
Maneuver carefully with your opinions. You must sound sure. You must be confident of your opinion. Don’t use hedge words or phrases, a common weakness in expert reports. In your reconstruction of an event, or as the result of your tests and analyses, you may reach a firm conclusion. Say so in your opinion. Do not use words like “seemingly,” “possibly,” “possibly,” “maybe” or even phrases like, “it appears that,” “it may be that,” or “it usually is the case that.” If you use phrases and words like these, I can assure you that your opinion will not be helpful. The other attorney will interrogate you about alternative ways to interpret your opinion. He will use your own hedging phraseology to suggest that your opinion should not be taken as credible or convincing. Why should the jury be convinced if you don’t even sound convinced?
By the same token, avoid absolutes, unless a condition about which you are talking is truly a sure thing with no exceptions. Just remember that is rare.
You may wonder exactly how to express your opinion when you do not believe that something is 100% certain, but are confident it is or was true. Here is the answer. The strongest and most acceptable phraseology when expressing each of your opinions is to meet the criteria that you are stating the opinion “…to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” or “…to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”

Judd Robbins has been an internationally recognized expert witness since 1986 in the US and in the UK. In 2010, his book “Expert Witness Training” was published by Presentation Dynamics. Robbins has advanced degrees from UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan, has been an Information Systems manager and an Education Systems manager, and consults in both computer and legal issues. Learn more about Mr. Robbins and his Expert Witness Training materials at

Find More Expert Witness Articles