alt.social-security-disability

That is the reason I have it set up to record my sessions. The first
psychiatrist mis-diagnosised me for over a year, and a half. She then
promised, in front of a State Advocate, to get me the specific therapy I
needed.

She then reneged on the promise, stating she never said that, after it was
said in front of a State Advocate.
It went to a State Appeal. I won, and am getting the therapy I need.

Now I have this new psychiatrist, same organization, who is gaffing on a
curve, and it is unwise for me to say anything until there is a review
process, and that is if one does take place. My review is coming up, and I
still need more time to get better. I think anyone would be concerned when
dealing with people of this caliber, and going through what I went though
with them.

The only person I have in my corning is my therapist who disagrees with this
psychiatrist GAF.

I have meet more people with mental health issues, that are more level
headed, than the "professionals" that they depend on.

Regards,

Bob Teslar


"Jim" wrote in message
news: $ @ ...
>
> "Jack" wrote in message
> news: @ ...
> > On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 17:39:46 -0700, "Bob Teslar"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Jack,
> >>
> >>I forgot to mention that in the program I am in, I have signed, and all
> >>the people in the program have signed off on, all the necessary
paperwork
> >>for me to audio record my psychiatrist visits.
> >>
> >>What that means is that I have on audio tape the part where the
> >>psychiatrist mentions that he is not Gaffing me based on me as an
> >>individual, yet is
> >>Gaffing me based on other people he is seeing.
> >>
> >>Would that help if "push" came to "shove"?
> >
> > As stated previously, the Axis V rating is just one slice of the
> > evidentiary pie.
> >
> > I never heard of a psychiatrist or psychologist render his subjective
> > opinions as measured against his findings relating to his other
> > patients.
> >
> > If the psychiatrist is rating you vis-a-vis his other patients, SSA
> > has no way of knowing the "batting average" of the other patients,
> > whether they are as a group slightly, moderately, or severely limited.
> > This would therefore render the subjective slice of the evidentiary
> > pie even smaller.
> >
> > In other words, his rating would have less probationary value than it
> > would be if it were based solely on his objective findings pertaining
> > to you alone, as it should be, rather than in comparison to his other
> > patients.
> >
> Kinda sounds to me like the shrink needs a shrink....
>
>