In August 1993, two months before I wrote the letter below, my then treating psychiatrist Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D. (The George Washington University Medical Center) recommended that I take the anti-psychotic medication, Haldol. I did not take the medication as recommended by Dr. Pitts. Presumably, the following letter -- and the cognitive and emotional reactions that it evidences -- was the product of psychotic mental illness.
October 22, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#136
Washington, DC 20008
Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D.
3120 Brandywine Street, NW
Washington, DC
Dear Dr. Ticho:
This will respectfully advise that the District of Columbia Department of Human Rights (DOHR) determined by opinion issued September 24, 1993 (copy enclosed) that my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, determined that I was unsuitable for employment based in part on a consultation with you that occurred in late October 1991.
DOHR determined that this consultation occurred despite your written denial addressed to me, dated July 4, 1993, a copy of which I forwarded to the DOHR.
This will formally advise that I have filed an appeal of DOHR's determination with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, on October 22, 1993.
Please be advised that you have a right to intervene in the above proceedings before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals per Rule 14(f) of the Court within 30 days of the filing of the Petition for Review, which was on October 22, 1993.
RULE 14(f) states in pertinent part: "Any other party who desires to intervene shall file a motion containing a concise statement of the interest of the moving party in the appeal and the grounds upon which intervention is sought. The notice of intervention or motion for leave to intervene shall indicate on which side the party is intervening. It shall be filed within 30 days of the date on which the petition for review is filed, unless the time is extended by order of the court for good cause."
Be advised that intervention in the above proceedings before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the only means by which you may disavow the findings of the DOHR and preserve your legal rights. You may wish to contact an attorney concerning this matter.
You may reach me at (202) 362-7064 or leave a message at (202) 363-3800.
Sincerely,
Gary Freedman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
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)]
How can a state agency make a finding of fact that a licensed professional breached the ethical precepts of her profession despite the written denial of the licensed professional.
Isn't that ultra vires?
Under the APA's Goldwater Rule, a psychiatrist may not offer a professional opinion about an individual she has not seen in private consultation and without the written consent by the individual to publish that opinion.
In this case, the only evidence that Dr. Ticho breached the Goldwater Rule is the employer's sworn statement to a state human rights agency in satisfaction of the employer's burden of production -- and not a burden of persuasion (under Burdine).
Haldol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haloperidol
God, I love my free money!! Just keep sending those checks, Mr. Geithner!!
Post a Comment