MEMORANDUM
TO: Sue Hahn
From: Judy Peres
Date: 15 January 1992 [should read 1993]
Re: Disclosure of case record per client access provision of the District of Columbia Mental Health Information Act, D.C. Code Sec. 6-2041
I have attached a request from Gary Freedman, a former client of the D.C. EAP office to inspect his records.
Mr. Freedman visited the D.C. office on two occasions separated by a year. His first visit with Kathleen Kelly on September 13, 1989 is well documented as is his return visit to me on November 26, 1990. On both occasions he was assessed and immediately referred out. He was seeing an outside therapist [Stanley R. Palombo, M.D.] and essentially was requesting a second opinion and referral recommendations when he returned the following year. I reinforced her referral recommendations and provided additional information on cognitive therapy referrals which he requested.
In his letter, he also attaches a sworn pleading filed with The District of Columbia Office of Human Rights and Minority Business Development by Akin, Gump - his former Employer which states that sometime during the period October 24 - October 29, 1991, Messrs. Lassamn and Race requested from, and was in fact provided by, Sheppard Pratt preferred resources, a representation regarding his mental status.
The D.C. Office has no record of a contact by Dennis Race or Malcolm Lassman concerning this client.
In addition, the client has sent a notarized authorization to release medical records which releases us of liability arising out of furnishing the record to the Department of Human Rights in connection with their investigation of his complaint file.
The D.C. law [Sec. 6-2041] governing the client's right to access his records is clear. Further, Suzanne Reynolds and I have reviewed both charts in question and they appear clear, concise and well documented. I have also attached a copy of the risk management report filed with the risk management office.
Therefore in light of the client's request and the clear mandate of the law, I am requesting permission for Gary Freedman to review his charts. Thank you for your attention.
attachments
cc: Suzanne Reynolds
6 comments:
Keep in mind that the posted memorandum is an internal document not prepared in contemplation of submission to the client.
My Brief on Appeal filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals states:
The employer had alleged to DHR that as part of its investigation of appellant's complaint of harassment it had contacted an unnamed counselor from its Employee Assistance Program who "confirmed that removal from the work setting was the appropriate action to take" with respect to appellant [Rec. 122]. In response to a specific information request posed by DHR, Race was unable to state the identity of the Sheppard Pratt counselor with whom he consulted [Rec. 122].
In rebuttal, appellant submitted to DHR a letter dated July 14, 1993 issued by the Director of Washington Operations of Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources, the employer's Employee Assistance Program Provider, stating that that mental health resource had no record of any communication with either Race or Lassman, the two attorney managers to whom appellant made his harassment complaint on October 24, 1991 [Rec. 63-64]. Sheppard Pratt policy mandates that its counselors prepare a written record--on an Employer Consultation Intake Form--of any communications with employers concerning a potential employee-client and that the record be maintained in a file of mental health information [Rec. 65]; this policy applies even in instances in which the consultation with the employer is not "employee-specific" [R. 65]. The providing of a representation of the kind that the employer claims to have sought 17/ and obtained from an unnamed Sheppard Pratt counselor regarding appellant's suitability for continued employment is not consistent with Sheppard Pratt policy [Rec. 63, 64].
Sheppard Pratt serves as a counseling service that works with the employee and employer to help remediate employment difficulties; Sheppard Pratt does not "confirm" the summary removal of an employee from the work setting [Rec. 63-64], as alleged by the employer [Rec. 122].
DHR accorded no weight to the competent and persuasive documentary rebuttal evidence offered by appellant regarding Sheppard Pratt business policies, which effectively controverted the employer's "production" [Rec. 8]. DHR simply affirmed its initial finding that the consultation, as alleged by the employer, had occurred [Rec. 7-8].
The quantum of documentary evidence that appellant submitted to DHR that controverted the employer's "production" outweighs the quantum of evidence offered by the employer that it had obtained input from Sheppard Pratt. Accordingly, DHR's finding of fact amounts to no more than an impermissible "reiteration of the evidence" offered by the employer in its interrogatory response. See Rosexpress, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 602 A.2d 659, 662 (D.C. 1992) (a reiteration of the evidence is not a finding of fact).
Evidence of possible document fabrication by Dennis Race:
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/akin-gump-possible-document-fabrication.html
Sheppard Pratt Preferred Resources, Inc.
July 14, 1993
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Dear Mr. Freedman
This letter is in response to your recent inquiry about your case file.
With regard to your question concerning EAP consultation with Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld:
We have no record of contact concerning you with either Dennis Race or Malcolm Lassman.
With regard to your question about Sheppard Pratt EAP's role in providing consultation to employers regarding employees whose job performance is affected by personal problems (attendance, quality/quantity of work or workplace conduct):
When an employer calls to discuss a troubled employee, we inquire about the history of documentation to determine if the employee's problem is chronic or in early stages. If the employer hasn't documented any earlier problem we suggest a statement of concern and an informal referral to the EAP. This can often prevent the problems from intensifying if the client follows up with recommendations. If the problem is chronic and there is documentation of a pattern of behavior impacting on job performance over a long period of time, we recommend a formal referral to the EAP. The purpose is to provide confidential intervention/support or accommodation to the problem which if addressed could ultimately lead to termination.
We do not tell employers to terminate employees. If an employer has months of documentation and has followed internal disciplinary procedures, i.e., providing verbal, written and suspension as counseling techniques it is the company's decision to fire for cause. Generally, employers do not call to ask EAP advice about terminating employees. They may call us to inform us about their decision if they know the employee was referred to the EAP, yet the performance problems continued over a long period of time. If we do not oppose the decision, this does not imply that we concur in the decision to terminate the employee.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Reynolds, M.A., CEAP
Assistant Director
Director -- Washington Operations
Employee Assistance Programs
SR/ab
record on appeal at 63-64
In March 1996 I advised the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Corporation Counsel that I possessed tape recordings of telephone conversations in which Dr. Ticho denied talking to Dennis Race or anyone at Akin Gump; in which Sheppard Pratt (Alana Baptiste, Esq.) denied speaking with Akin Gump and stated about Akin Gump's allegation of a communication with Sheppard Pratt prior to my job termination: "That just sounds so fabricated."
I provided the MPDC (J.E. Williams, 2d Dist.) a copy of those tapes in April 2004.
Incontrovertible evidence of false testimony made by Akin Gump to a DC agency or a U.S. District Court:
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/06/akin-gump-inconsistent-testimony.html
Post a Comment