Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Social Security Claim -- Letter to SSA October 5, 1993

October 5, 1993
3801 Connecticut Ave., NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008

U.S. Social Security Administration
Office of Disability and International
        Operations
1500 Woodlawn Drive
Baltimore, MD 21241

RE: Social Security Disability Claim xxx-xx-xxxx

Dear Sir:

Enclosed with respect to the above-referenced claim is a final determination by the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights, issued September 24, 1993, that found that the action of my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, was lawful based as it was on Akin Gump’s determination, made in consultation with a psychiatrist, Dr. Gertrude R. Ticho, that I suffered from a serious mental disorder that rendered me potentially violent.

I direct your specific attention to page 8 of the Determination on Reconsideration paragraph 3: “Exhibit D of Complainant’s Request for Reconsideration, a handwritten letter from Dr. Gertrude Ticho, presents evidentiary questions regarding authenticity. Furthermore, the letter does not present new evidence that would preclude the possibility of a discussion between Dr. Gertrude Ticho and some other employee of Respondent whereby the incidents of harassment may have been presented and discussed without mentioning Complainant’s name.”

Also enclosed is a copy of a transcript of a telephone conversation I had with Dr. Ticho on July 3, 1993 in which she denies having communicated with Akin Gump and states that she would never provide a representation regarding the mental status of an individual she had not evaluated in person.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

2 comments:

Gary Freedman said...

Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
3120 Brandywine Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
_____

Telephone: 202-244-2113

July 4, 1993

Dear Mr. Freedman,

When you called me on the morning of July 2, 1993 you asked me two questions, which I promised to answer in writing.

1.) I never met, nor have I ever spoken to a Mr. Dennis R. Rice [sic].

2.) I do not know your identity, Mr. Gary Freedman nor have I ever seen you for a diagnostic evaluation.

Sincerely,

Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.

[Record on appeal at 62, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998)]

Gary Freedman said...

4. Akin Gump’s sworn declaration states that Race and Lassman spoke to Dr. Ticho in a telephone conference call. Dr. Ticho expressly denied speaking to Race. (I did not ask Dr. Ticho if she had ever spoken to Lassman; she had no reason to deny she spoke with him). The Department of Human Rights finding that Dr. Ticho might have spoken with someone other than Race (Record 8) is rank speculation directly controverted by Akin Gump’s sworn production and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

5. Akin Gump alleges that it spoke with Dr. Ticho, a practicing psychiatrist, without mentioning my name. Under the American Psychiatric Association’s professional rules of ethics a psychiatrist may not offer a professional psychiatric opinion about someone without first having examined the individual personally, and then only if the individual consents to the publication of the opinion. I did not personally consult Dr. Ticho. Akin Gump's attorney managers (who are themselves licensed professionals) are alleging that a psychiatrist violated the canons of her profession without explaining why she did so and the firm is alleging that a psychiatrist offered a professional psychiatric opinion about me that would be considered inherently unreliable by the American Psychiatric Association.

6. Note that the Corporation Counsel is placing its imprimatur on a professional psychiatric opinion that the Office knew or should have known was inherently unreliable and that was offered in violation of the Code of Ethics of the American Psychiatric Association. The Office knew or should have foreseen that anyone, such as the Social Security Administration, who justifiably relied on the imprimatur of the Office of Corporation Counsel would be a victim of fraud."




http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/03/dc-reply-brief-freedman-v-dc-dept-human.html