Letter to Dr. Pitts -- January 8, 1993 -- Notice of Violence Risk

In the following letter to Suzanne M. Pitts, M.D., my then treating psychiatrist at the George Washington University Medical Center, I try to make sense of my environment and my relationship with my therapist.  The article assumes that Dr. Pitts has been transmitting confidential mental health information to my former employer, the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld.  The letter also places a psychoanalytical interpretation on evidence produced by my former employer relating to my job termination.  Of interest is the fact that although I had been diagnosed with psychotic mental illness, and, according to GW, saw persons in my environment as persecutors, the letter is devoid of any anger.  The exposition is purely analytical and intellectualized.  Apparently, my affect is invested totally in trying to understand my world.  To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that my paranoid thinking has ever been associated with feelings of anger and a propensity to violent acting out or revenge.  

Uncannily, Gertrude R. Ticho, M.D. served as consulting editor on the technical article I reference in the following letter.  As of January 1993 I was unaware that Akin Gump had consulted Dr. Ticho in late October 1991, who advised the firm that I seemed to be paranoid and potentially violent. 

From a legal standpoint the following letter places GW on notice that my former employer considered me to be mentally ill and potentially violent.  Did GW have a legal duty to contact Dennis Race?  Did GW in fact contact Dennis Race?  

Dr. Pitts first discussed prescribing Lithium for bipolar disorder in early February 1993.

January 8, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC  20008

Dr. Suzanne M. Pitts
Department of Psychiatry
George Washington University
  Medical Center
2150 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20036

Dear Dr. Pitts:

Enclosed is an article titled “Magic and Healing: An Ethnopsychoanalytic Examination” by Richard Day and Ronald. Davidson published in The Psychoanalytic Study of Society 7: 231-291 (Yale University Pres: 1976).

The article points to a number of unique psychological qualities, not frequently encountered in patients, that may be of significance in my case.  I have highlighted a number of key sentences that may be of importance in my case.  The issues discussed in the article relate to the uniquely “environmental” quality of my psychological difficulties that are not comprehended by standard DSM-III categories or diagnostic criteria.  Whether the psychological type discussed in the article represents a distinct pathology omitted from the DSM-III categories or whether the type transcends specific diagnostic categories (that is, not limited to any specific category) is beyond my ability to say.

Of special significance with respect to the transference is the material at page 257: “Magic and Healing.”  The material suggests a fundamental distinction between the nature of the transference in my case and the transference as typically encountered.

In most cases the transference is a stable dyad, with the patient always “acting” as patient and the therapist always “acting” as healer.

TYPICAL STABLE THERAPEUTIC DYAD

patient . . . . . therapist

My case may be more complex, and may in fact be a labile triad encompassing patient, therapist, and audience.  The calculus is made all the more complex by the fact that the roles of patient, therapist, and audience are not stable but labile and relative.

The labile healing triad would be schematized as follows:

LABILE HEALING TRIAD

             therapist (healer)

               1. Dr. Pitts
               2. Freedman

patient . . . . . . . . . . audience

1. Freedman            1. persons in the environment
2. persons in            2. Dr. Pitts
   the environment

The triad arising in the therapeutic session comprises me as patient, you as therapist, and persons in the environment.  But what I seek to discuss in the therapeutic sessions are the problems arising from others in my environment playing the role of patient and placing me in the role of healer.  One might offer the tentative hypothesis that in the psychotherapy of the “creative” patient, the transference itself will always be to some degree Janusian, with the patient being simultaneously patient/healer and the therapist being simultaneously healer/audience.

As evidence of this proposition, I would cite the attached memo dated October 29, 1991 from Dennis Race to File.  The memo on its face purports to place me in the role of patient and others in my environment as audience.  But based on everything we now know about my relations with my co-workers (and Dennis Race himself)--facts extrinsic to the memo--we are justified in saying that to a certain degree it is others in my environment who are the patients and I who am the healer (scapegoat, or “lightening rod of common anxiety”).

I hope we can make use of this schema in understanding our relationship.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

MEMORANDUM

TO: File
FROM: Dennis M. Race [initialed DMR]
DATE: October 29, 1991                                                     CONFIDENTIAL
RE: Gary Freedman
__________________________________________

In the course of investigating Gary's complaints about working conditions (none of which, by his own admission, involved activity or conduct which had a direct impact on him), I concluded that Gary's inability to work or interrelate with others is a substantial problem for the firm. There is only so much work that can be done without any interaction among our staff (which is what he requests) and his continued presence in the firm has been extremely disruptive. Reported outbursts and arguably bizarre behavior have made it uncomfortable and sometimes disruptive for many of his co-workers -- some of whom have voiced fear in working with or nearby him. In addition he is very difficult to supervise.

Malcolm Lassman and I have also discussed this matter, including Gary's work habits (as well as his habit of putting negative meanings to even trivial events i.e., "ideas of reference") with two outside consultants and both concurred that termination was the sound approach to take. One outside consultant also cautioned about the possibility of violence.

Accordingly, on the basis of disruptive work habits, unusual behavior and discussions with outside consultants, I believe that termination is warranted. Indeed, to do otherwise may prove to be negligent. I have discussed this with representatives of the Management Committee and our Administrative Staff and everyone concurs.

Gary will be given an additional two weeks severance (a total of four weeks) not only to cover extra time to look for alternative work but also to help cover insurance costs which will be borne directly by him upon leaving the firm.