The Appeals Court heard argument in a case challenging a registry classification and the denial of funds to obtain an expert evaluation. Edward Gauthier, for the registrant identified in the record as John Doe, argued that certain risk-assessment factors (including repetitive and compulsive behavior under "factor 37") are not supported by admissible science as applied by the hearing examiner and that counsel below should have been granted funds to develop expert evidence.

Gauthier emphasized perceived gaps in the record—he said the DSM-based diagnosis (adjustment disorder) and supporting affidavits were not developed into live expert testimony and that the hearing examiner therefore lacked a complete evidentiary basis for a higher classification. He also argued that research cited (including a 2004 article and the Hansen meta-analysis) was not applied consistently and that actuarial scores (Stable-2007, Static-99) should be considered in context.

Board counsel responded that the hearing examiner’s decision to classify DOE as a level 2 was supported by substantial evidence, that the record included affidavits and exhibits considered by the examiner, and that the board appropriately exercised discretion in denying expert funds where the proffered nexus to risk was not established. The panel questioned how the regulations treat actuarial tools and whether the ultimate risk opinion in an evaluation is binding when the report author does not appear live.

The case was taken under submission after argument.