Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)

Citation
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Parent Document
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-10-13

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text

773 chars
In our opinion, the court's requirement of expert testimony to establish the tenant's "mental impairment" under the Fair Housing Act—and especially the further requirement that experts opine with a "specific diagnosis"—sets the bar too high. "Mental impairment" is a generic term that incorporates multiple diagnoses and, on occasion, is susceptible to identification by lay individuals even less trained and experienced than Sutton and Byrd. Indeed, persuasive case law firmly establishes that lay persons—while not competent to offer specific diagnoses—can render opinions as to a person's mental condition based on their own personal observations.[51] No more than that—no specific diagnosis—is required for a finding of mental impairment under the Fair Housing Act.[52]