Paul W. Hruz, M.D., Ph.D.

U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida · trial / merits (order following bench trial) · court order

Their role: retained by defendants (state Medicaid agency) to testify at trial

After a bench trial, Judge Hinkle found that Dr. Hruz 'fended and parried questions and generally testified as a deeply biased advocate, not as an expert sharing relevant evidence-based information and opinions,' and stated he did not credit Hruz's testimony at all (crediting other defense experts only insofar as consistent with the court's own findings). The court separately noted Hruz had joined an amicus brief in another proceeding describing transgender identity as a 'false belief.'

“one of the defendants’ experts, Dr. Paul Hruz, joined an amicus brief in another proceeding asserting transgender individuals have only a “false belief” in their gender identity”

Dekker v. Weida: Order

“Dr. Hruz fended and parried questions and generally testified as a deeply biased advocate, not as an expert sharing relevant evidence-based information and opinions. I do not credit his testimony.”

Dekker v. Weida: Order

Source: Dekker v. Weida: Order

U.S. District Court, N.D. Florida · preliminary injunction · court order

Their role: defendants' expert in the related Dekker v. Weida trial; not shown to have testified in Doe v. Ladapo itself

In granting a preliminary injunction in a separate but related Florida case, Judge Hinkle repeated, essentially verbatim, his assessment from the Dekker v. Weida trial record that Dr. Hruz 'fended and parried questions and generally testified as a deeply biased advocate' and that the court did not credit his testimony, again referencing Hruz's amicus-brief statements describing transgender identity as a 'false belief.' The citations are to the Dekker trial transcript, not to testimony given in this case.

“Dr. Hruz fended and parried questions and generally testified as a deeply biased advocate, not as an expert sharing relevant evidence-based information and opinions. I do not credit his testimony.”

DOE v. LADAPO: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Source: DOE v. LADAPO: Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas · trial - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (post-trial, permanent injunction) · court order

Their role: retained by the state (defendant) to testify at trial as a pediatric endocrinologist

Following trial, the court found Dr. Hruz had never treated a patient for gender dysphoria and declined to credit his opinion that the body of research supporting gender-affirming care is unreliable or that such care is not effective, finding decades of clinical experience and research demonstrate its effectiveness. The court found Hruz, along with two other state experts recruited at the same advocacy-group seminar, 'unqualified to offer relevant expert testimony' and testifying 'more from a religious doctrinal standpoint' than as Daubert-qualified experts, with opinions 'grounded in ideology rather than science,' citing similar assessments in Doe v. Ladapo and Kadel v. Folwell.

“Dr. Hruz has never treated a patient for gender dysphoria.”

Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac

“The Court does not credit these opinions because it finds that the evidence showed that decades of clinical experience in addition to a body of scientific research demonstrate the effectiveness of these treatments.”

Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac

“it does not credit Dr. Hruz’s assessment that the entire body of research is, therefore, meaningless.”

Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac

“it is clear from listening to the testimony that Professor Mark Regnerus, Dr. Paul Hruz, and Dr. Lappert were testifying more from a religious doctrinal standpoint rather than that required of experts by Daubert.”

Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac

“Most of the State’s expert witnesses, Professor Mark Regnerus, Dr. Stephen Lappert, and Dr. Paul Hruz, were unqualified to offer relevant expert testimony and offered unreliable testimony. Their opinions regarding gender-affirming medical care for adolescents with gender dysphoria are grounded in ideology rather than science.”

Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac

Source: Dylan Brandt v. Tim Griffin: Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Findings of Fac

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee · preliminary injunction · court order

Their role: retained by the state (defendant) to testify regarding gender-affirming care for minors

Ruling on a preliminary-injunction motion, the district court found the testimony of Dr. Cantor and Dr. Hruz 'minimally persuasive' because neither had ever diagnosed or treated a minor with gender dysphoria, consistent with other courts' treatment of Hruz (citing the Kadel district court's qualification limits and Judge Hinkle's Doe v. Ladapo comments). The court expressly declined to find Hruz a 'deeply biased advocate' as Judge Hinkle had, but still discounted his testimony for lack of direct clinical experience diagnosing or treating gender dysphoria.

“the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the testimony of Dr. Cantor and Dr. Hruz is minimally persuasive”

L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION

“Judge Hinkle commented that Dr. Hruz’s testimony was that of a “deeply biased advocate, not [] an expert sharing relevant evidence-based information and opinions,””

L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION

“The undersigned sees no current need or basis to accuse Dr. Hruz of being a deeply biased advocate posing as an expert, but he does discern the need to discount Dr. Hruz’s testimony somewhat for the reasons mentioned.”

L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION

Source: L. W. v. Jonathan Skrmetti: MEMORANDUM OPINION

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (en banc) · appeal - Rule 702 (Daubert-type) evidentiary ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion · court opinion

Their role: retained by North Carolina (defendant) to testify about the treatment of gender dysphoria

The en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to limit Dr. Hruz's expert testimony: he was not permitted to testify about the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the DSM, its potential causes, desistance rates, or the efficacy of mental-health treatments (he is not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or mental-health professional and had not researched, diagnosed, or treated gender dysphoria), but the district court still allowed him to testify to the risks of puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy based on his career treating patients and academic research on hormone effects. The court of appeals found no abuse of discretion in that partial exclusion.

“Dr. Hruz was not qualified to testify about “the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the DSM, gender dysphoria’s potential causes, the likelihood that a patient will ‘desist,’ or the efficacy of mental health treatments.””

Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed

“the district court still allowed Dr. Hruz “to testify to the risks associated with puberty blocking medication and hormone therapy,” based on his “long career treating patients and conducting academic research on the effects of hormone treatments.””

Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed

Source: Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch: Published authored opinion filed