A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...

the psychiatrist wrote (in part), “It has been my clinical impression that Jonathan hasbeen suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of child abuse. Icannot presume to know what exactly took place at the Anderson School, and Jonathanwill never have the verbal abilities to tell us what happened.”The Inspector General’s Office interviewed this psychiatrist regarding his“clinical impression” that Jonathan was suffering from PTSD. The psychiatrist reportedthat the behaviors and aggression displayed by Jonathan were unusual, and it was his“clinical hunch” that Jonathan may have been suffering from PTSD as a result of thetreatment at the Anderson School. He said this was based on the parents’ verbal report ofevents, as well as the behaviors he observed and heard about from Jonathan’s parents.When asked whether he ever actually diagnosed Jonathan with PTSD, the psychiatristreplied “no.” He indicated that he “could never confirm or discount that diagnosis” ofPTSD in Jonathan, mostly because Jonathan was non-verbal and because no one reallyknew what happened at the Anderson School. He said that he never officially diagnosedJonathan with anything other than autism. The psychiatrist further told the InspectorGeneral that he recognized that the language in the letter to Maul may have been toostro ng, stating “I would never say that under oath that he had PTSD. I can’t back thatup.” He said he should have used “more cautious phrasing” and that “nobody candiagnose this child with PTSD with certainty.”In 2005, the Careys sued the Anderson School in state Supreme Court in Albanyclaiming Jonathan’s rights had been violated. The lawsuit is pending.By October 2005, Jonathan was living at the OMRDD-operated O.D. HeckDevelopmental Center in Niskayuna. There, he spent much of his school day in a quiet88