One Piece Episode 1016
One Piece Episode 1016 ::: https://urloso.com/2tl6kx
After the Toei Hack delayed the release of the previous episode for several weeks, the studio seems to be doing its absolute best with the animation of the series, and it seems to have pleased the audience. The details of the action scenes were specifically impressive in One Piece episode 1016.
One Piece episode 1016 ended with Luffy, Kidd, Law, Zoro, and Killer gearing up to fight against Kaido. Hopefully, Toei will maintain this standard of animation through the rest of the Wano Country arc, specifically for the upcoming battles.
Episode 1015 took those cinematography principles and dialed them up to 11. The episode began with resuming the flashback moments between Portgas D. Ace and Yamato. This flashback was stunningly emotional, even for those who knew exactly what would happen and especially for those with an emotional attachment to Ace. This episode endeared fans even more toward Yamato who may eventually join the Straw Hats on their journey on the Grand Line.
One Piece episode 1016 is now scheduled to release one week later than previously expected because of the Golden Week delay; set to premiere on Sunday, May 8th for the majority of territories around the world.
On May 4, 2001, correctional staff discovered a piece of metal had been cut from the desk in Mr. Comer's cell. A portion of the missing metal, sharpened into a blade, was reportedly recovered from the cell of an inmate adjacent to Mr. Comer's cell. A lighter flint, which ADOC believed Mr. Comer used to cut the metal from his desk to manufacture the shank, was reportedly found concealed in a wall of Mr. Comer's cell. The remainder of the metal cut from the desk was never found despite repeated searches of Mr. Comer's cell and the pod in which Mr. Comer was housed, as well as medical examinations of Mr. Comer and other inmates. Additionally, Mr. Comer made threatening statements to correctional officers. The Court was not notified of these events nor did Respondents seek modification of the stipulated-to contact visit order for Dr. Johnson and special counsel.
Dr. Kupers began his testimony on depression by explaining that his opinion and his current diagnosis is that Mr. Comer suffers \"Major Depressive Disorder\" which Dr. Kupers based upon the diagnostic criteria for this disorder identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (\"DSM-IV\") which \"has a format for diagnosing depression.\" (Id. at 20-21.) He then drifts into a discussion of a \"depressive episode\" explaining that the DSM-IV defines a \"depressive disorder\" as \"someone who has two or more depressive episodes\" and he then offers the undifferentiated opinion that \"Mr. Comer indeed had two very serious depressive episodes, probably more, and probably is very depressed in between episodes,\" and that he \"fit all of [the] characteristics\" for this disorder. (R.T. 3/26/02 at 21.) (Emphasis added.)
The DSM-IV identifies a \"Major Depressive Episode\" as within the category of \"Mood Episodes,\" but characterizes a \"Major Depressive Disorder\" as within a separate group of the DSM-IV titled \"Depressive Disorders.\" DSM-IV at 318, 320, 339. Dr. Kupers is correct that the two disorders clearly overlap in that a \"Major Depressive Disorder\" does include the condition of a \"depressive episode,\" and the integral definition of a \"Major Depressive Disorder,\" is as follows: the \"essential feature of a Major Depressive Disorder is a clinical course that is characterized by one or more Major Depressive Episodes.\" DSM-IV at 339 (emphasis added). The DSM-IV also expressly provides, however, that a reliable diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder requires deductively excluding alternative explanations for the symptoms and that: \"General Medical Condition [does] not count toward a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder.\" DSM-IV at 339. (emphasis added.) Concomitantly, in a comparable section under the heading \"Differential Diagnosis,\" the DSM-IV states that \"Major Depressive Episodes in Major Depressive Disorder must be distinguished from Mood Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition.\" Id. at 343. During his direct testimony, Dr. Kupers rendered his opinion without distinguishing, excluding or dismissing any possible alternative diagnoses, including a medical condition, before firmly concluding that Mr. Comer was afflicted with a major depressive disorder.
Dr. Kupers identified what he claimed was the first of two depressive episodes experienced by Mr. Comer as occurring in May 1999 when Robert Vickers died. (R.T. 3/26/02 at 22.) The DSM-IV, which Dr. Kupers relied on, sets forth the criteria *1042 for a \"Major Depressive Episode\" as requiring the presence of \"[f]ive (or more) of [identified symptoms] during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning ....\" DSM-IV at 327. Significantly, neither in his testimony nor in his report did Dr. Kupers find at least five of the identified symptoms as being experienced by Mr. Comer over the two-week period following Mr. Vickers's death. Instead, Dr. Kupers's report cited Mr. Comer's comments that after the death of his friend:
(R.T. 3/26/02 at 22.) This description of Mr. Comer's emotional condition after his friend's death does fit two of the criteria in the DSM-IV, that is, he had a(1) \"depressed mood most of the day ...\" and a(2) \"markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day ...\" DSM-IV at 327. However, Dr. Kupers did not testify that Mr. Comer complained that he also experienced any of the remaining symptoms identified in the DSM-IV for a major depressive episode which are, (3) significant weight loss, (4) insomnia or hypersomnia, (5) psychomotor agitation or retardation, (6) fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day, (7) feelings of worthlessness or excessive inappropriate guilt, (8) diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, or (9) recurrent thoughts of death. Id. Hence, Dr. Kupers's testimony describing Mr. Comer's symptoms following Mr. Vickers's death do not establish a major depressive episode pursuant to the DSM-IV.
DSM-IV at 326. Neither in his report nor his testimony did Dr. Kupers attempt to distinguish the differential diagnosis of bereavement from the symptoms he attributed to a major depressive episode until questioned on cross-examination and during his rebuttal testimony. (R.T. 3/26/02 at 22; Dep. R.T. at 50-52.) On cross-examination Dr. Kupers attempted to bolster his opinion by emphasizing that Mr. Comer's symptoms seemed to have occurred for more than two months after the death, but he agreed with Dr. Johnson that the length of time is not \"absolute\" and that the circumstances that warrant a diagnosis of a depressive episode is a matter of \"clinical judgment involved on a case-by-case basis.\" (R.T. 3/26/02 at 216; Dep. R.T. at 91.)
Dr. Kupers's identification of Mr. Comer's purported second major depressive episode fares no better than the first. Dr. Kupers claims this episode began in the spring of 2001 and lasted until November of 2001, when Mr. Comer lost 30 to 40 pounds. (R.T. 3/26/02 at 22.) Dr. Kupers testified that during this time Mr. Comer \"spent most of this time in bed. He was unable to get out of bed for most of the time. He was not interested in anything. He cutoff contact with the outside world. He stopped reading the newspaper. He became uninterested in living.\" Id. Although Dr. Kupers cited the existence of five of the DSM-IV's criteria for the diagnosis of major depressive episode, DSM-IV at 327, he did not consider or reconcile his diagnosis of depression with the material facts that could otherwise explain Mr. Comer's weight loss at that particular time.
Mr. Comer did not suffer from anorexia nervosa, but he did manifest depressive features of semistarvation during this period when he voluntarily chose not to eat. Thus, his physical and mental condition mimicked depression, but he was not experiencing a major depressive episode as defined in the DSM-IV.
Finally, Dr. Kupers's third, more theoretical conclusion, is that Mr. Comer may be afflicted with depression \"during the windows of time\" between his \"depressive episodes.\" (R.T. 3/26/02 at 23.) Significantly, his opinion was not confidently asserted. He testified that Mr. Comer \"probably is very depressed in between episodes.\" (Id. at 21.) (emphasis added.) To sustain his perception, Dr. Kupers claimed that Mr. Comer has experienced:
First, Dr. Kupers's reliance on the description in the DSM-IV of the \"episode features\" of a major depressive episode for the \"windows of time\" when he conceded that Mr. Comer was not experiencing a major depressive episode is erroneous. Simply put, if Mr. Comer is not suffering a major depressive episode, the features for this disorder, absent some authority to the contrary, are irrelevant to whether Mr. Comer is experiencing a different type of depression between the purported episodes. It is undisputed in Dr. Kupers's rebuttal testimony, given after reviewing the transcript of Mr. Comer's hearing testimony, that Dr. Kupers did not believe Mr. Comer had \"depressive episodes\" other than the two discussed above. (See Dep. R.T. at 54.) Significantly, he testified that Mr. Comer \"came out of his major depressive episode\" adding \"No. I don't haveI don't have an opinion\" that Mr. Comer was in a severe depressive episode at the time Mr. Comer testified at the evidentiary hearing. (emphasis added). Nonetheless, Dr. Kupers, without specific reference to the DSM-IV, or any other authoritative source, persisted in maintaining that Mr. Comer \"continued to suffer a depressive disorder.\" (Dep. R.T. at 54, 57.) Dr. Kupers's opinion is therefore \"not supported by appropriate validation.\" Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S. Ct. 2786.
Although the remainder of Dr. Kuper's interpretation of the DSM-IV's criteria for PTSD appears plausible, it is, however, misleading because he imprecisely applies the criteria to Mr. Comer. Apart from some traumatic experience, the DSM-IV describes three groups of symptoms for PTSD, and one or more of each group must be suffered by the patient to establish a diagnosis of PTSD. DSM-IV at 428. The first group of symptoms is that the *1052 patient is \"persistently reexperienc[ing]\" the traumatic event in at least one of various specific ways. Id. Of these, Dr. Kupers mentioned two: \"flashbacks\" and \"nightmares\" but he did not state that these events were severe and recurrent. This is required. Id. For example, the DSM-IV describes \"dissociative flashback episodes,\" i.e., flashbacks, as causing the sufferer to feel as though the traumatic event is \"recurring.\" Id. Also on rebuttal, after Mr. Comer testified that he did not experience flashbacks, Dr. Kupers retracted this aspect of his opinion, conceding that, \"[y]es. I think that he might be technically correct about that.\" (Dep. R.T. at 30.) Dr. Kupers attempted to rehabilitate his diagnosis by identifying a different way in which Mr. Comer \"reexperienced\" traumatic events as \"recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the events, including images, thoughts or perceptions.\" (Id. at 30-3.) Dr. Kupers failed, however, to specifically identify any phenomena that he observed in Mr. Comer to support his newly minted opinion of Mr. Comer's alleged persistent reexperiencing of traumatic events. 59ce067264