as the evidence found sufficient in Gomes. The Sell inquiry, however, does not end with this finding. Recognizing importantly that the district court in Gomes “chiefly relied” on the testimony of the BOP experts to satisfy the Sell requirement that the proposed involuntary medication was substantially likely to restore the subject defendant to competency, the Second Circuit noted that the district court found secondary support in “the BOP’s 70 percent success rate in restoring defendants to competence through treatment.” Gomes, 387 F.3d at 161-62. The highlighted statistic covered BOP’s success rate “treating defendants with psychotic disorders similar to [the defendant’s].” Gomes, 305 F.Supp.2d at 165 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Bedros, 2008 WL 2437865 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>). The statistic did not, therefore, reflect
holding that the government proved with clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial likelihood involuntary medication would restore the subject defendant to competence based on testimony of an expert who incorporated two studies into his estimate that defendant had at most a 60 chance of recovery but noted that the studies did not address patients with the precise disorder suffered by defendant holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone may provide a valid foundation for a causation opinion even when no epidemiological studies peerreviewed published studies animal studies or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion holding that alj properly rejected opinions based on invalid objective studies holding that animal studies can be a proper foundation for an experts opinion but that those opinions must be sufficiently supported by the animal studies on which they purport to rely holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense