 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watson v. Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Phoenix2/13/2003
question was never repressed . . . . [As of the time Watson turned] 18 on January 16, 1990, this Court believes that the memories of the events with Bredemann were subject to his recall or reminiscence . . . .
. . . . This Court cannot, in good faith, based upon the facts and evidence in this case find that . . . [Watson's] memory was repressed . . . .
While the trial court did not say in haec verba that Watson could at all times have remembered the events, the only rational implication from these findings is that the trial court did not believe Watson suffered any loss of memory or was ever unable to remember what had happened to him.
The trial court believed, rather, that Watson "willfully placed these events out of his mind either because they were not important to him, or the benefits of remaining silent outweighed the turmoil that disclosure would cause within his family and church," or because of "embarrassment." The trial court noted that Watson's escalating drug use, which included intravenous drugs, caused his focus on the events of his childhood to fade for a period of years. The trial court ultimately concluded that Watson had deliberately chosen to disclose the molestation by Bredemann to his family at a point when "he perceived that he was going to be permanently excommunicated from family" and that his decision to disclose was an attempt "to regain favor with his family and to make a break away from" his destructive lifestyle.
The sine qua non of dissociative amnesia is the inability to remember, the involuntary loss of memory. Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 319, 19, 955 P.2d 951, 957 (1998) (memory repression, also known as dissociative amnesia, "is the involuntary blocking of memory so that the memory remains stored but inaccessible to the conscious mind"). In its ruling the trial court noted that a conscious effort to avoid thinking about an event is called "cognitive avoidance" and correctly distinguished cognitive avoidance from dissociative amnesia, which is unconscious and involuntary. Watson's expert psychologist, Dr. Daniel Brown, defined cognitive avoidance as "a continuous memory" that the subject does not talk about because he or she is uncomfortable. (Emphasis added.) Dr. Brown acknowledged that choosing not to think about an event is not an unconscious psychological process but a deliberate thought process. Appellees' expert psychologist, Dr. Charles Brainerd, described cognitive avoidance as "the antithesis" of dissociative amnesia. After hearing all of the testimony and evidence, expert and lay, the trial court concluded that Watson's memories were not inaccessible, or lost, and either were or could have been retrieved within the period of limitations.
Contrary to Watson's contention, the trial court did not adopt or apply any rule concerning cognitive avoidance that is contrary to Arizona law from the Illinois case cited in its ruling, Clay v. Kuhl, 696 N.E.2d 1245 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). Clay merely illustrates the significance of being unable to remember, an involuntary loss of memory, which may toll the statute of limitations, as opposed to an ambiguous allegation that plaintiff "had no memory of the molestation" until shortly before she filed the action. Id. at 1251 (quoting plaintiff's complaint). The Clay court ordered the plaintiff to file an amended pleading setting forth the reason why she "had no memory" so that the trial court might determine whether her reasons for lack of memory met the standards of legal and scientific sufficiency for tolling the statute of limitations due to repressed memory of abuse. Id. at 1251-52.
Watson argues that, as a matter of policy, a pedophile such as Bredemann sh
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|