My Meeting With Stephen D. Quint, MD at the P Street Clinic

I met with Dr. Quint and the social worker Marjorie Heydt at the P Street Clinic on October 30, 1996. I had had a therapeutic consult with Marjorie Heydt on August 29, 1996, my first. I got into an argument with her; I was loud and excited. First, I found Ms. Heydt to be an obnoxious person. (She's the individual who had turned me away from treatment with the Clinic in May 1996.) I also disagreed with Dr. Quint's decision to assign me for therapy with a social worker.

Dr. Quint was feisty at the meeting on October 30. He seemed determined to dismiss any evidence that was adverse to my Social Security Disability claim. I found that odd in view of the Clinic's original decision to turn me away from treatment, and Dr. Quint's more recent action in assigning me to a social worker instead of a psychiatrist.

A psychiatry resident, Dr. Singh, later became available at the Clinic, and I began psychotherapy with him in November 1996.

Incidentally, Dr. Quint's brother is the DC attorney, Arnold H. Quint, Esq.

November 2, 1996
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW #136
Washington, DC 20008-4530

Stephen D. Quint, M.D.
Attending Physician
Community Mental Health Center/North Annex
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 282-0027

RE: Social Security Disability Claim xxx-xx-xxxx

Dear Dr. Quint:

This will confirm that we reviewed the following issues, pertinent to the above-referenced disability claim, at the assessment consult on Wednesday October 30, 1996 attended by you, Marjorie Heydt, MSW, and myself.

Diagnoses assigned by the George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry ("GW")

In response to my statement that bi-polar disorder (296.70) is considered a rule-out for paranoid schizophrenia (295.30), you stated that you had recently read a journal article stating that the two illnesses share common symptoms.

You did not respond to my assertion that Robert L. Spitzer, M.D. (Columbia University), a nationally-recognized expert in psychiatric nomenclature, maintains that a sustained mood disturbance (and marked loosening of associations)--both characteristic symptoms of bi-polar disorder--are inconsistent with paranoid schizophrenia. See Spitzer, R.L. DSM-III-R Case Book (third ed., revised) at 30 (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1989) (case report titled "Under Surveillance").

Psychological Testing Performed by GW

I reported that comprehensive psychological testing performed by GW in May 1994 (including the Millon Self-Report Survey, which specifically assesses Axis I symptomatology, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, which can be used to derive an Axis II diagnosis) failed to yield either an Axis I or Axis II diagnosis (and, additionally, failed to show any psychotic thought processes).

Notwithstanding the failure of previous testing to yield a diagnosis, you stated that you had arrived at a diagnosis in my case. I assume that it is your professional opinion that I indeed suffer from a diagnosable mental illness as of the present time.

Pervasive Anger

You stated a professional opinion that the anger that I displayed at my consultation with Mrs. Heydt on August 29, 1996 was not appropriate to the circumstances of the consultation, that the anger was attributable to an intrinsic psychological disturbance, and indicated the need for intensive therapy. In response to my comment that anger is a healthy emotion, you stated it is not healthy "to be angry all the time."

Severability of Mental Health Issues and Legal Issues

You stated that the psychological aspects of my case are distinct from the legal issues surrounding my job termination by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld ("Akin Gump"), effective October 29, 1991. These legal issues relate specifically to civil and possible criminal liability of Akin Gump managers in apparently fabricating evidence that I suffered from a mental illness that rendered me potentially violent, a negligence risk to the employer, and not suitable for employment.

I assume that it is your position, and that of the District of Columbia Department of Human Services (Mental Health Services Administration) of which you are a representative, that the outcome of any future legal actions relating to my job termination by Akin Gump is unrelated to my current diagnosis, current employability, and therefore to my current eligibility for disability benefits paid by the U.S. Social Security Administration ("SSA"). In other words, it is your position that my eligibility for SSA benefits is unrelated to any future determination that Akin Gump managers fabricated evidence that I suffered from a mental illness that rendered me not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991.

You will note that SSA determined the effective date of my disability to be October 29, 1991, based on sworn statements prepared by Akin Gump's managers relating to my mental stability and potential for violence as of that date.

I have provided to you a signed release authorizing you or Mrs. Heydt to speak with Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D., the psychiatrist upon whose professional opinion Akin Gump's managers relied to determine that I was not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991.

Out of a concern for the safety of staff at the P Street Clinic, I believe it is advisable that I postpone my initial consult with Dr. Singh until such time as you have consulted with Dr. Ticho, who reportedly determined that I pose a risk of violence. See Freedman v. D.C. Dept. of Human Rights, D.C. Superior Court no. MPA 95-14 (final order issued June 10, 1996). I request that you prepare a written memorial of your consult with Dr. Ticho and forward that document to me so that I can begin therapy as soon as possible.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman
Patient no. 230923

cc: Michael C. Rogers (Office of City Administrator)
U.S. Social Security Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation