Chart: www.treatmentchoice.org/FIRSTHALF.htm#LTS
In 1993, the case was initiated by a non-custodial unemployed father whose wife testified to his history of substance abuse. His wife had reported him for fraudulently collecting Social Security benefits on their two children (BOR Appendix C-7). In response, the father filed for custody, and during the Easter holiday he took the 8-year-old boy to his own doctor’s office, where a doctor he had never seen before (covering for Dr. Gloria Vreeland on maternity leave) put the boy on Ritalin after a short visit recorded in a brief 6-line chart notation, and before the testing evaluation was received (see chart of Dr. Vreeland at footnote 95 at above link).
(I understand that the father TESTIFIED WHILE ON A MORPHINE DRIP – is this allowable?)
The mother, it should be noted, had not had any problems with the boy’s behavior, and the teachers had also not complained (TR Vol. 15, pg. 56, lines 4-28.) The mother also reported that the evaluator refused to talk to her (TR Vol. 15, pg. 57, lines 21-28) when she called.
When the mother objected to the use of Ritalin, and reported the boy’s side effects and worsening behavior, the father got a court order for her to keep the child on Ritalin or lose custody. She took the boy to Dr. Sinaiko, an allergist, and requested allergy testing. She was hoping to show that allergies may underlie the behavior problems the father was complaining about. The boy had a history of chronic eczema, and the family allergy history included multiple allergies. The father retaliated by going back to his doctor for a child endangerment letter complaining about the medication Dr. Sinaiko was using. Dr. Vreeland testified that she knew perfectly well that amphotericin B was safe orally, (TR Vol.6, p.31, lines 13-18) but wanted to give him something for his lawyer, (TR Vol. 6, p.49, lines 21-18) so she wrote the “child endangerment” letter – the father then sent it to the FDA and they forwarded it to the MBC, and eventually that triggered this case.
Charts: www.treatmentchoice.org/working.htm#JH
www.treatmentchoice.org/working.htm#SL
www.treatmentchoice.org/working.htm#RS
These three patients were not complainants. They were hunted down by the MBC itself after the case was opened using the boy LTS. Their names were among a list of names provided to the MBC investigator by a patient who was unhappy because Dr. Sinaiko die not respond to her efforts at seduction. (Dr. Sinaiko ultimately was forced to obtain a permanent restraining order against this patient) The patients were each sent a letter asking them to release their records. This letter included a threat that their chart could be subpoenaed and they should see their attorneys. (Discovery documents) It is significant that even with such threats, only three patients agreed to release their records – one was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic, one was deceased, and the third had issues about paying his bill.