Scheduled for Trial in November Burgus v. Braun, Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois,
Case Nos. 91L8493/91L8493 [1]
Case Nos. 91L8493/91L8493 [1]
A malpractice suit challenging "repressed memory" therapy
THE DEVIL & DR. BRAUN
Matt Keenan
New City, Chicago June 22-28, 1995
Matt Keenan
New City, Chicago June 22-28, 1995
Five complaints from three sets of cases in the state of Texas serveas the source of information about Bennett Braun. In two of the cases,former MPD patients are suing Braun for malpractice. In the other three cases he is listed as a codefendant. There is another suit from a woman in Illinois and her two sons who were also hospitalized for an extensive length of time. The author notes that "Braun played a key role in defining the modern approach to MPD.
After seeing his first case of the disorder in 1974, he fostered a growing interest in the subject and went on to become a leading clinician in the field. In a 1992 interview, noted MPD authority Dr. Richard Kluft said, 'Every MPD patient in the country owes a personal debt of gratitude to Buddy [Braun]. He's the first ever to get a unit set up for these people, and all the other units around the country follow the train he has blazed.' Braun's efforts have also attracted the attention of some prominent feminists-- in fact, Gloria Steinem thanks him in the credits to her book
Revolution From Within and she delivered the keynote speech at a national conference on MPD held here [Chicago] last year." A haunting observation from Dr. Philip M. Coons, a prominent Indianapolis-based authority on the condition of MPD, appeared in this article, "My guess is that one out of twenty people with MPD will commit suicide, and many, many more will attempt it at one time or another." Coons believes that MPD is far less rare than skeptics deem.
**********************************************************************"Multiple Personalities You would never know they existed The reason these cases are so hard to diagnose is the patients develop so many personalities to hide behind as a means of protection.And unless these personalities can be coaxed out from the dark shadows of the patient's mind, you would never know they existed."
F M S F O U N D A T I O N N E W S L E T T E R (e-mail edition)
Vol 6 No. 3, March 1, 1997
********************************************************************
Bennett Braun, M.D.
November 12, 1980 Palm Beach Post interview with Steve Rothman
Scheduled for Trial in November .Burgus v. Braun, Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois.
Case Nos. 91L8493/91L8493 [1]
Burgus v. Braun, Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois
Case Nos. 91L8493/91L8493.[6]
Zachary Bravos, one of Burgus's attorneys, said, "This case demonstrates the tremendous influence people in authority can have over a patient. While false satanic abuse memories are the most easily attacked outgrowth of such therapy, we really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that great harm can be caused when any false memory is encouraged and accepted without corroboration. If they can do this to adults, they can certainly do it to children." "Psychologists have known for 100 years that false memories can be implanted using hypnosis," said Christopher Barden, another of Burgus's attorneys. Burgus was also represented by attorney Todd Smith of Chicago. Her attorneys said that if the case had gone to trial, they were prepared to call on experts to support their case. These experts were: William Grove, Ph.D., James Hudson, M.D., Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., Paul McHugh, M.D., Richard Ofshe, Ph.D., and August Piper, M.D.
The defendants made no admission of negligence in the settlement. Dr. Bennett Braun, director of the hospital's section of psychiatric trauma, called the settlement a "travesty" and said that it was done over his objections. Dr. Braun said Mrs. Burgus raised the stories herself and exaggerated the use of hypnotism. Braun said he used "standard psychotherapy" and any hypnosis was for pain control. Braun is quoted in the New York Times as saying, "Yes the kids did see handcuffs. They did see a gun. But it was for therapeutic reasons." Psychiatrist Elva Poznanski, the hospital's section chief of child and adolescent psychiatry, treated Ms. Burgus's sons from 1986 to 1989. Dr. Poznanski issued a statement saying, "On the basis of the knowledge available at that time, I would not change the treatment of these boys."
"I nearly died," Burgus said. "The memories I was being told were in my mind were so terrible that I could not live with myself as thatkind of person." The "physical and psychological torture" drove her to attempt suicide. "They have taken my past, rewritten my past,contaminated all of the memories that I have as a person, and I'm supposed to go on and live my life as though this has never happened.
It's just not possible." Burgus said, "Our family was tortured for years at Rush. No amount of money can make up for what we went through." She said her family is still recovering from the ordeal. Burgus, who is now president of the Mental Health Association of DuPage Co., Ill. said, "I hope that five or 10 years from now, history will reflect that this was a terribly dark period of psychiatry and that we did something to stop it."
References:
[6] See also, FMSF Newsletter, Nov. 1997; PBS Frontline, "The Searchfor Satan" (11/1/95) produced by Ofra Bikel; Ofshe, R. and Watters, E., (1994) "Therapy of a High Priestess,"Making Monsters, Scribners; Belluck, P. (11/6/97) "'Memory' Therapy leads to a lawsuit and big settlement," The New York Times; Rotzoll, B. (11/5/97) "Settlement ends woman's ordeal; $10.6 million for 'psychological torture.'" Chicago Sun-Times; Gregory, T. (11/7/97) "$10 million award in psychiatry suit, new blot on therapy," Chicago Tribune.
[7] FMSF Brief Bank #4 contains Complaints and many of the filings from the 6 year history of this suit.
[8] See FMSF Brief Bank #178.
[1] In December 1997, a U.S. District Court in a Memorandum Opinion rejected a motion to dismiss a psychiatric malpractice claim brought by Mary Shanley against her former psychiatrist Bennett Braun and 17 other individual and corporate mental health care providers in the Chicago area.
[2] After a thorough review of the affidavits submitted by both parties, the court held that "undisputed facts are completely insufficient for this Court to conclude that Shanley's claim is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and repose." In 1989, Shanley entered therapy in Illinois after undergoing a serious medical operation. During the period she was in defendants' care,
[3] She states that some of the defendants applied "hypnotic and other suggestive and coercive techniques with the goal of uncovering supposed 'repressed memories' of early childhood trauma." Shanley contends that the psychotropic drugs administered in an effort to decrease "switching" between her supposed "alter personalities" were actually of a type that would be expected to increase her tendency towards suggestion, coercion and manipulation by her treaters and therapists. Defendants allegedly informed Shanley that her dreams of abuse were real memories, that she suffered from a "dissociative disorder," possibly caused by Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), and that therapy might elicit such memories. Dr. Braun confirmed that Shanley was a survivor of SRA in need of additional treatment.
[4] Shanley's husband was told that he should protect the couple's young son from ritual abuse by Shanley. Shanley was informed that, unless she "proved herself" by coming up with information to identify other Satanists in her community and "save" her son from the Satanic cult, she would not be admitted to the specialized dissociation unit at Rush North Shore Hospital. At the same time the treaters allegedly informed Shanley that she and her family were in immediate danger from the Satanic cult because she had divulged "cult secrets" during her therapy. Shanley was discharged from Rush North Shore Hospital in 1991 after eleven months of continuous hospitalizations. From May 1991 to June 1993 Shanley was treated for MPD and SRA at Spring Shadows Glen Hospital
[5] n Houston. Her young son was sent to the children's unit where he was diagnosed with MPD as the result of supposed satanic abuse. During this time, Shanley's already high levels of medication were allegedly increased further to produce more "memories" of her involvement in the supposed Satanic cult. As part of her "treatment," Shanley was deprived of contact with the outside world, and was allegedly informed that she would face criminal action and/or be involuntarily committed if she were to attempt to leave her "voluntary" treatment. Mary Shanley filed this suit in 1995, approximately 4 years after she was discharged from treatment with the Illinois group and approximately 2 years after she left treatment at Spring Shadows Glen in Texas. Defendants' motion to dismiss argued that Shanley's suit was, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations. Shanley counters that she did not comprehend the "incredible harm that had been done" to her or "the malpractice that had been committed" and was "legally disabled" from the start of her treatment in early 1989 until the cessation of her treatment in June 1993.Following a lengthy discussion of the definition of "legal
disability" for purposes of tolling the limitations period, the court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to Shanley's alleged legal disability sufficient to withstand the motion for summary judgment and to send the matter to trial.
The court explained that defendants' arguments are contradictory: "On one hand, [defendants] assert that Shanley was mentally competent and able to understand her rights and her cause of action, while on the other, they maintain that Shanley's mental condition was serious enough that it required that she be hospitalized, medicated and psychologically treated for four years of her life." For example,defendants presented voluntary restraint authorization forms in which Shanley agreed to the use of leather restraints in order to help uncover repressed memory and maintain her safety while in treatment. Defendants argue that these forms show Shanley was able to make decisions about her medical care at that time. The court disagreed. On the contrary, the court wrote, the forms Shanley signed showed that she felt she did not have the ability to keep from physically harming herself even under Defendants' care. The court wrote, "it would be strange to suggest that she was able to consider and exercise her legal rights against Defendants" in that condition. Furthermore, the court questioned whether Shanley really knew or understood what she was signing.
The court concluded that defendants' own exhibits demonstrate that Shanley could not control herself and believed that she was still being controlled by her "alters." The court quoted from extensive medical records which also supported the view that Shanley was legally disabled at the time. One of her caregivers wrote, "the results of the psychological examination indicate that Mrs. Shanley is much more seriously disturbed than she clinically presents. A great deal of trauma appears to have beenexperiences [sic] early in life that she is not aware of. Serious pathology is involved in sequestering this material behind amnestic barriers." Shanley contends that as a result of her "treatment," she lost all ties with her son, underwent more than three years of unnecessary and improper treatment, incurred more than $2 million in medical expenses, lost her career as a school teacher, and was divorced by her husband. Mary Shanley is represented by Zachary M. Bravos of Wheaton, Illinois.
__________
References
1. See, FMSF Brief Bank # 42b. The summary of this case is drawn from the U.S. District Court decision.
2. Current defendants are Bennet Braun, M.D., Dale Giolas, M.D., Forest Health System, Inc., Forest Hospital, Robert J. Simandl, Elaine Shepp, A.C.S.W., and David McNeil, M.D.
3. Shanley was also treated by Karen Gernaey, Rush North Shore Hospital, Roberta Sachs, Raymond Kozial, and Frank Leavitt. Each of these defendants had previously settled out-of-court.
4. The Court quoted extensively from Shanley's discharge summary written in 1990 by defendant Braun: "Patient is a victim of satanic ritualistic abuse. Diagnosis of MPD. Apparently someone outside the family is activating her or an alter personality to attempt suicide ... One of the inside parts states that the body will be in danger from March 22nd to April 13th. The right side remembers cult activities such as the rites of spring occurring on March 21st. This is apparently a time for initiation into one of three levels and also a time for blood sacrifice...One of the goals [of therapy] was to teach Mary some self-hypnosis techniques in order to help the alters communicate more appropriately between [sic] each other...by the end of March, Mary was working quite hard, but some internal parts were sabotaging her progress in therapy...She was struggling with the acceptance of the diagnosis of MPD and dissociation, having a high level of denial, frequently refusing her Inderal, not participating in group activities, maintaining an isolative [sic] and withdrawn demeanor...At this point, Mary was able to identify five generations of cult involvement, going back to Ireland, and an alter named Nura came out..."
5. See, Shanley v. Peterson, et al, U.S. Dist. Ct., Houston Div., Texas, No. H94-4162. See also FMSF Brief Bank #42a and FMSF
Newsletters Jan. 1995, Jan. 1996.
Dear Friends,
"Because of our sense of social responsibility..."
Thus begins the Statement of the FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board. The assembled members of the Board agreed unanimously on a number of fundamental points about what research has shown about memory and therapy practices. It is a strong statement and it is with particular pleasure that we publish it in this issue. It is sobering to compare the views of our Board members with those of some other professionals. The Board writes: "No major mental health professional association has acted decisively to prevent members from contributing to this public health problem." Contrast that with these words of Dr. David Spiegel: "I'm not worried about the Texas case and I'm not worried about the Chicago case, because I think these were outliers where there are serious questions about what they were doing.
I am worried, though, that there is a militant, aggressive advocacy group that is encouraging all kinds of restrictions on therapy, including requirements for disclosures, consent forms and restriction on ordinary, everyday, sensible psychotherapy, and that part of it bothers me." [1]
The Texas case, Carl v Keraga, was settled for $5.9 million. The Chicago case, Burgus v Braun, settled for $10.6 million. Yes, we all fervently hope that these cases are outliers and we all fervently hope that they do not reflect the nature of the majority of psychiatrists.We agree that there are "serious questions" about the practices of the psychiatrists in these cases. But it should be noted that neither of the named psychiatrists worked in a vacuum. Both Dr. Keraga and Dr. Braun practiced their outlier therapies in accredited hospitals, in plain view -- and with the implicit endorsement -- of their professions. Both were well known psychiatrists and were well known in their communities.
Dr. Braun was well known as a international authority in his field, indeed, he served as President of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation where he exhibited his then-patient, Pat Burgus, as a stellar example of his work. Both Dr. Keraga and Dr. Braun are still practicing psychiatry. If a profession cannot or does not curb the extreme "outliers," what confidence can the public have? What does it say to the public that nothing has yet been done, not one statement written, to discredit space-alien-abduction-abuse, past-life-abuse, satanic ritual abuse therapy or all the other "outlier" therapies? What does it say to mental health consumers that no professional organization has taken any steps to prevent its members from engaging in risky practices that endanger the public?
If professionals who have given approval to "outlier" practice by their silence do not want external restrictions, they must act to solve what they claim is a small problem. One puzzles over Dr. David Spiegel's description of people who are addressing a public health problem as a "militant, aggressive advocacy group." Does the FMSF Advisory Board statement fit that description? We think it is reflection of professionals who do have a sense of social responsibility and who feel obliged to try to protect the public.
PAMELA
[1] Grinfeld, J. (12/1997) "Criminal Charges Filed in Recovered Memory Case: Psychiatrists Liable for Millions in Civil Suits," Psychiatric Times.
The legal action filed in August by the Illinois Department of License and Inspection to revoke Bennett Braun's license is another significant and related event. Bennett Braun, M.D., whose recent $10.6 million settlement with a patient received national attention, was key to the development and spread of recovered memory therapy practices. He was a founder of International Society for the Study of Multiple Personality (now ISSD) whose journals and conferences taught others about techniques for recovering "repressed memories."
"Every MPD patient in the country owes a personal debt of gratitude to Buddy [Braun]. He's the first ever to get a unit set up for these people, and all the other units around the country followed the trail he has blazed," said Richard Kluft, M.D. when honoring Braun in 1994.[1] Gloria Steinem credited Braun in Revolution From Within, thus ensuring the support of the women's movement.
PAMELA
[1] quoted in Keenan, M "The Devil and Dr. Braun", New City, June 22,
1995
________________________________________________
Controversial Psychiatrist Faces Loss of License Illinois Department of Professional Regulation v. Braun.
No. 1998-10343-01 [3]
The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation issued a nine-count complaint outlining how, according to officials, Chicago psychiatrist Bennett Braun nearly destroyed the lives of a family he treated during the late 1980s. The complaint is the first step in the state agency's move to strip Dr. Braun of his medical license. It alleges gross negligence; dishonorable, unethical and unprofessional conduct; making false or misleading statements; and improper prescription of controlled substances. According to Thomas Glasgow, chief of medical prosecutions for the Department, Braun used irresponsible combinations of Halcion, Xanax, sedatives, hypnotic psychotropic drugs, and prescribed Inderal, a blood pressure drug, at levels "that weren't even animal-tested at the time."
Glasgow is quoted as saying, "[Braun] misused the course of treatment of multiple-personality disorder the way a surgeon misuses a knife. . . The problem here is that someone with an inordinate amount of trust, who was caring for extremely fragile and susceptible psychiatric patients, misused both his prestige and his medical ability." Through conferences, videotapes and seminars, Braun, 58, has helped train many of those now treating multiple-personality disorder around the country. A preliminary hearing before a Department of Professional Regulation administrative judge is scheduled for September 28. Braun's attorney, Harvey Harris, declined to comment other than to say he believed most of the sensational press coverage surrounding the case to be false. According to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (8/13/98), Dr. Braun has been sued by five former patients.
Four of the suits were filed in the last 3 years in Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois and one was filed this year in the U.S. District Court in Illinois. While details of the allegations vary, the suits contend that Braun misdiagnosed his patients as having multiple personalities and dredged up false memories that included accounts of murder, incest, rape, satanic worship, human sacrifice or other traumatizing events. Two of the suits have been settled without admission of liability on the part of Braun, while the others are pending. Last October, Braun and Rush-Presbyterian paid $10.6 million to Burgus to settle a civil lawsuit against them. The amount is among the highest ever in a false memory case.[4]
[3] See FMSF Brief Bank #203 for copy of Complaint. See also C.
Grumman, Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98
[4] See FMSF Newsletter November and December 1997.
All Defendants Settle in Illinois Malpractice Suit Shanley v. Braun, et al. U.S. Dist. Court, Ill., No. 95 C 6589. In December 1997, a U.S. District Court rejected a motion to dismiss a psychiatric malpractice claim brought by Mary Shanley against her former psychiatrist Bennett Braun and 17 other individual and corporate mental health care providers in the Chicago area.[7]
Since then, all parties have amicably resolved their differences and the case has been settled for a confidential amount. Mary Shanley was represented by Zachary M. Bravos of Wheaton Illinois. Mr. Bravos also informed us that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, after a review of the evidence, has voluntarily agreed to remove Mary Shanley's name from the state registry of "indicated" child abusers[7]
Shanley v. Braun. et al., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20024, Memorandum Opinion and Order, docketed Dec. 10, 1997. At the time of the December 1997 decision, defendants included Bennett Braun, M.D., Dale Giolas, M.D., Forest Health System, Inc., Forest Hospital, Robert J. Simandl, Elaine Shepp, A.C.S.W. and David McNeil, M.D.
Several defendants including Karen Gernaey, Rush North Shore Hospital, Roberta Sachs, Raymond Kozial and Frank Leavitt had previously settled out-of-court. See also FMSF Newsletter, March 1998 and FMSF Brief Bank #42..
Editor's Note: Two state appellate courts recently considered the application of statutes of limitations in therapeutic malpractice cases. Earlier decisions in other jurisdictions have recognized the particular difficulties patients receiving so-called Recovered Memory Therapy may have in understanding their injuries. [8]
[8] See, e.g., Shanley v Braun et al., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20024. Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Dec. 10, 1997; Lujan v Mansmann, et al, 956 F. Supp. 1218 (E.D. Pa., 1997); Lujan v Mansmann, et al, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14987.
**********************************************************************Malpractice Suit Against Dr. Bennett Braun
F M S F O U N D A T I O N N E W S L E T T E R (e-mail edition)
Vol 6 No. 10, November 1997
**********************************************************************
Scheduled for Trial in November .Burgus v. Braun, Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois.
Case Nos. 91L8493/91L8493 [1]
A malpractice suit challenging "repressed memory" therapy that was filed six years ago is scheduled for trial November 3, 1997 in Cook County Circuit Court. The trial, which is expected to last 6-14 weeks, will simultaneously hear three suits brought by Patricia Burgus, her husband, and two minor children against Dr. Bennett Braun, Rush-Presbyterian Hospital and Dr. Elva Poznanski.
In 1986, Patricia Burgus was one of the first patients on the dissociative disorders unit founded by Bennett Braun, M.D. at Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago. She originally sought treatment for depression following the difficult birth of her second son. She was under Braun's care and supervision at Rush until 1992.
During that period, Braun used tapes of interviews with Pat to teach residents, other doctors and the media about multiple personality disorder (MPD). Under high doses of medication, and receiving hypnotism, Pat now says reality and fantasy "blended together." Pat became convinced that she had over 300 alternate personalities as a result of extended and repeated traumatic childhood abuse including participation in ritual murders, cannibalism, Satan worship, and torture by family members. Pat explained to Frontline, "I was told
that, until I hit bottom, until I dug all of this stuff out, I would never get better and I would never have a chance for any kind of a future for my children."
that, until I hit bottom, until I dug all of this stuff out, I would never get better and I would never have a chance for any kind of a future for my children."
Pat Burgus's two young sons, Mikey and John, were hospitalized at Rush for almost three years under Braun's care. Pat explained to Frontline that she and her husband were told that their children needed to be hospitalized because the boys may be genetically predisposed to MPD. Because Rush is a teaching hospital, if the disorder developed, they were told, it could be caught and treated. John was admitted at age 5 and Mikey was admitted to the children's psychiatric ward on an emergency basis when he was 4 years old. Braun reportedly told the family that unless Mikey was in the hospital over Halloween, he would be in mortal danger. During the years of hospitalizations, the two young boys received psychotherapy from Braun and from another defendant, Dr. Elva Poznanski.
They were encouraged to develop "alter personalities" and to display behaviors consistent with a supposed MPD. Braun, the Complaints state, used suggestive and coercive techniques including exposure to guns and handcuffs in order to encourage the children to "remember" episodes of abuse as part of supposed transgenerational, organized satanic cult. The children would receive stickers for telling "yucky secrets." The more yucky secrets they were able to tell, the more stickers they got for that day. [2] The three years of treatment cost over $3 million. According to the Complaint, as a result of treatment by defendants Braun and Poznanski and during their hospitalization at Rush, the minor children became increasingly mentally ill. Pat's previously close relationship with her husband and parents was destroyed. She came to falsely believe that she had been abused and that she had in turn abused her own children. According to the Complaint, Braun failed to advise that the diagnosis of MPD was controversial, that MPD can be caused by improper therapy, and that the mental health community is divided as to whether it exists or not. Instead he told Pat that the "memories" being uncovered represented real memories of actual historical events and that she was the only person questioning the validity of memories of transgenerational satanic cults. The Burgus family reasonably relied on those representations.
Defendant Rush-Presbyterian is charged with failure to adequately supervise the activities of Dr. Braun and failure to perform adequate inspections of the conditions existing on the unit which hospitalized Burgus.
[1] Information taken from Complaint filed Nov. 16, 1993; Second Amended Complaint, No. 93 L 14050, filed Aug. 8, 1994; Third Amended Complaint, No. 91 L 8493, filed Nov. 2, 1994. See also PBS Frontline,
(11/1/95) "The Search for Satan," producer Ofra Bikel.
(11/1/95) "The Search for Satan," producer Ofra Bikel.
[2] For example, Dr. Braun related one of John's stories in court testimony as proof of satanic activities, explaining that a 5-year-old boy told a story of sticking a knife in a man's abdomen and how the intestines popped out and smelled terrible. Braun suggested that this story could only come from direct experience. It should be noted that Pat Burgus says Braun dismissed her query that the story could have come from a scene in a Star Wars movie that John had seen. In "The Empire Strikes Back," after Luke Skywalker cuts open the beast he was riding, all the guts spill out and Skywalker comments on how terrible
it smells.
it smells.
**********************************************************************Record Settlement in False Memory Malpractice Case
F M S F O U N D A T I O N N E W S L E T T E R (e-mail edition)
Vol 6 No. 11, December 1997
**********************************************************************
Burgus v. Braun, Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois
Case Nos. 91L8493/91L8493.[6]
Six years after filing, and on the day trial was expected to begin, Patricia Burgus and her family agreed to accept $10.6 million from her former therapists and hospital in what is believed to be a record settlement amount for a false memory suit. Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center agreed to pay $3.5 million based on derivative charges concerning treatment of the Burgus children. The remaining $7.3 million will be paid by psychiatrists Bennett Braun and Elva Poznanski. The status of three additional defendants, Roberta G. Sachs, Ph.D., Ann-Marie Baughman, ACSW, and Rush-Presbyterian as it pertains to Patricia Burgus' treatment is currently on appeal before the Court of Appeal, 1st Dist., Ill. Court documents [7] detail the charges against defendants Braun, Poznanski, and the hospital. Burgus was referred to the hospital for severe post-partum depression.
She received a diagnosis of MPD and was treated with various medications, hypnosis, and occasionally kept in leather restraints during 6 years of treatment that included 2 1/2 years as an inpatient. Burgus became convinced that she was a member of a satanic cult, had participated in ritual murder, and had sexually abused her two children, none of which was true. Burgus was also persuaded to hospitalize her two healthy children, then ages 4 and 5, for almost three years because doctors believed her disorder might be genetic. Patricia and her husband Michael had to obtain a court order to get their children released from the hospital.
Zachary Bravos, one of Burgus's attorneys, said, "This case demonstrates the tremendous influence people in authority can have over a patient. While false satanic abuse memories are the most easily attacked outgrowth of such therapy, we really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that great harm can be caused when any false memory is encouraged and accepted without corroboration. If they can do this to adults, they can certainly do it to children." "Psychologists have known for 100 years that false memories can be implanted using hypnosis," said Christopher Barden, another of Burgus's attorneys. Burgus was also represented by attorney Todd Smith of Chicago. Her attorneys said that if the case had gone to trial, they were prepared to call on experts to support their case. These experts were: William Grove, Ph.D., James Hudson, M.D., Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., Paul McHugh, M.D., Richard Ofshe, Ph.D., and August Piper, M.D.
The defendants made no admission of negligence in the settlement. Dr. Bennett Braun, director of the hospital's section of psychiatric trauma, called the settlement a "travesty" and said that it was done over his objections. Dr. Braun said Mrs. Burgus raised the stories herself and exaggerated the use of hypnotism. Braun said he used "standard psychotherapy" and any hypnosis was for pain control. Braun is quoted in the New York Times as saying, "Yes the kids did see handcuffs. They did see a gun. But it was for therapeutic reasons." Psychiatrist Elva Poznanski, the hospital's section chief of child and adolescent psychiatry, treated Ms. Burgus's sons from 1986 to 1989. Dr. Poznanski issued a statement saying, "On the basis of the knowledge available at that time, I would not change the treatment of these boys."
"I nearly died," Burgus said. "The memories I was being told were in my mind were so terrible that I could not live with myself as thatkind of person." The "physical and psychological torture" drove her to attempt suicide. "They have taken my past, rewritten my past,contaminated all of the memories that I have as a person, and I'm supposed to go on and live my life as though this has never happened.
It's just not possible." Burgus said, "Our family was tortured for years at Rush. No amount of money can make up for what we went through." She said her family is still recovering from the ordeal. Burgus, who is now president of the Mental Health Association of DuPage Co., Ill. said, "I hope that five or 10 years from now, history will reflect that this was a terribly dark period of psychiatry and that we did something to stop it."
References:
[6] See also, FMSF Newsletter, Nov. 1997; PBS Frontline, "The Searchfor Satan" (11/1/95) produced by Ofra Bikel; Ofshe, R. and Watters, E., (1994) "Therapy of a High Priestess,"Making Monsters, Scribners; Belluck, P. (11/6/97) "'Memory' Therapy leads to a lawsuit and big settlement," The New York Times; Rotzoll, B. (11/5/97) "Settlement ends woman's ordeal; $10.6 million for 'psychological torture.'" Chicago Sun-Times; Gregory, T. (11/7/97) "$10 million award in psychiatry suit, new blot on therapy," Chicago Tribune.
[7] FMSF Brief Bank #4 contains Complaints and many of the filings from the 6 year history of this suit.
[8] See FMSF Brief Bank #178.
**********************************************************************U.S. District Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Psychiatric Malpractice Claim Against Dr. Bennett Braun Shanley v. Braun, et al., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20024 Memorandum Opinion and Order, docketed December 10, 1997.
F M S F O U N D A T I O N N E W S L E T T E R (e-mail edition)
Vol 7 No. 2, March 1998
**********************************************************************
[1] In December 1997, a U.S. District Court in a Memorandum Opinion rejected a motion to dismiss a psychiatric malpractice claim brought by Mary Shanley against her former psychiatrist Bennett Braun and 17 other individual and corporate mental health care providers in the Chicago area.
[2] After a thorough review of the affidavits submitted by both parties, the court held that "undisputed facts are completely insufficient for this Court to conclude that Shanley's claim is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and repose." In 1989, Shanley entered therapy in Illinois after undergoing a serious medical operation. During the period she was in defendants' care,
[3] She states that some of the defendants applied "hypnotic and other suggestive and coercive techniques with the goal of uncovering supposed 'repressed memories' of early childhood trauma." Shanley contends that the psychotropic drugs administered in an effort to decrease "switching" between her supposed "alter personalities" were actually of a type that would be expected to increase her tendency towards suggestion, coercion and manipulation by her treaters and therapists. Defendants allegedly informed Shanley that her dreams of abuse were real memories, that she suffered from a "dissociative disorder," possibly caused by Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), and that therapy might elicit such memories. Dr. Braun confirmed that Shanley was a survivor of SRA in need of additional treatment.
[4] Shanley's husband was told that he should protect the couple's young son from ritual abuse by Shanley. Shanley was informed that, unless she "proved herself" by coming up with information to identify other Satanists in her community and "save" her son from the Satanic cult, she would not be admitted to the specialized dissociation unit at Rush North Shore Hospital. At the same time the treaters allegedly informed Shanley that she and her family were in immediate danger from the Satanic cult because she had divulged "cult secrets" during her therapy. Shanley was discharged from Rush North Shore Hospital in 1991 after eleven months of continuous hospitalizations. From May 1991 to June 1993 Shanley was treated for MPD and SRA at Spring Shadows Glen Hospital
[5] n Houston. Her young son was sent to the children's unit where he was diagnosed with MPD as the result of supposed satanic abuse. During this time, Shanley's already high levels of medication were allegedly increased further to produce more "memories" of her involvement in the supposed Satanic cult. As part of her "treatment," Shanley was deprived of contact with the outside world, and was allegedly informed that she would face criminal action and/or be involuntarily committed if she were to attempt to leave her "voluntary" treatment. Mary Shanley filed this suit in 1995, approximately 4 years after she was discharged from treatment with the Illinois group and approximately 2 years after she left treatment at Spring Shadows Glen in Texas. Defendants' motion to dismiss argued that Shanley's suit was, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations. Shanley counters that she did not comprehend the "incredible harm that had been done" to her or "the malpractice that had been committed" and was "legally disabled" from the start of her treatment in early 1989 until the cessation of her treatment in June 1993.Following a lengthy discussion of the definition of "legal
disability" for purposes of tolling the limitations period, the court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to Shanley's alleged legal disability sufficient to withstand the motion for summary judgment and to send the matter to trial.
The court explained that defendants' arguments are contradictory: "On one hand, [defendants] assert that Shanley was mentally competent and able to understand her rights and her cause of action, while on the other, they maintain that Shanley's mental condition was serious enough that it required that she be hospitalized, medicated and psychologically treated for four years of her life." For example,defendants presented voluntary restraint authorization forms in which Shanley agreed to the use of leather restraints in order to help uncover repressed memory and maintain her safety while in treatment. Defendants argue that these forms show Shanley was able to make decisions about her medical care at that time. The court disagreed. On the contrary, the court wrote, the forms Shanley signed showed that she felt she did not have the ability to keep from physically harming herself even under Defendants' care. The court wrote, "it would be strange to suggest that she was able to consider and exercise her legal rights against Defendants" in that condition. Furthermore, the court questioned whether Shanley really knew or understood what she was signing.
The court concluded that defendants' own exhibits demonstrate that Shanley could not control herself and believed that she was still being controlled by her "alters." The court quoted from extensive medical records which also supported the view that Shanley was legally disabled at the time. One of her caregivers wrote, "the results of the psychological examination indicate that Mrs. Shanley is much more seriously disturbed than she clinically presents. A great deal of trauma appears to have beenexperiences [sic] early in life that she is not aware of. Serious pathology is involved in sequestering this material behind amnestic barriers." Shanley contends that as a result of her "treatment," she lost all ties with her son, underwent more than three years of unnecessary and improper treatment, incurred more than $2 million in medical expenses, lost her career as a school teacher, and was divorced by her husband. Mary Shanley is represented by Zachary M. Bravos of Wheaton, Illinois.
__________
References
1. See, FMSF Brief Bank # 42b. The summary of this case is drawn from the U.S. District Court decision.
2. Current defendants are Bennet Braun, M.D., Dale Giolas, M.D., Forest Health System, Inc., Forest Hospital, Robert J. Simandl, Elaine Shepp, A.C.S.W., and David McNeil, M.D.
3. Shanley was also treated by Karen Gernaey, Rush North Shore Hospital, Roberta Sachs, Raymond Kozial, and Frank Leavitt. Each of these defendants had previously settled out-of-court.
4. The Court quoted extensively from Shanley's discharge summary written in 1990 by defendant Braun: "Patient is a victim of satanic ritualistic abuse. Diagnosis of MPD. Apparently someone outside the family is activating her or an alter personality to attempt suicide ... One of the inside parts states that the body will be in danger from March 22nd to April 13th. The right side remembers cult activities such as the rites of spring occurring on March 21st. This is apparently a time for initiation into one of three levels and also a time for blood sacrifice...One of the goals [of therapy] was to teach Mary some self-hypnosis techniques in order to help the alters communicate more appropriately between [sic] each other...by the end of March, Mary was working quite hard, but some internal parts were sabotaging her progress in therapy...She was struggling with the acceptance of the diagnosis of MPD and dissociation, having a high level of denial, frequently refusing her Inderal, not participating in group activities, maintaining an isolative [sic] and withdrawn demeanor...At this point, Mary was able to identify five generations of cult involvement, going back to Ireland, and an alter named Nura came out..."
5. See, Shanley v. Peterson, et al, U.S. Dist. Ct., Houston Div., Texas, No. H94-4162. See also FMSF Brief Bank #42a and FMSF
Newsletters Jan. 1995, Jan. 1996.
**********************************************************************
F M S F O U N D A T I O N N E W S L E T T E R (e-mail edition)
July/August 1998 Vol 7 No. 6
**********************************************************************
Dear Friends,
"Because of our sense of social responsibility..."
Thus begins the Statement of the FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board. The assembled members of the Board agreed unanimously on a number of fundamental points about what research has shown about memory and therapy practices. It is a strong statement and it is with particular pleasure that we publish it in this issue. It is sobering to compare the views of our Board members with those of some other professionals. The Board writes: "No major mental health professional association has acted decisively to prevent members from contributing to this public health problem." Contrast that with these words of Dr. David Spiegel: "I'm not worried about the Texas case and I'm not worried about the Chicago case, because I think these were outliers where there are serious questions about what they were doing.
I am worried, though, that there is a militant, aggressive advocacy group that is encouraging all kinds of restrictions on therapy, including requirements for disclosures, consent forms and restriction on ordinary, everyday, sensible psychotherapy, and that part of it bothers me." [1]
The Texas case, Carl v Keraga, was settled for $5.9 million. The Chicago case, Burgus v Braun, settled for $10.6 million. Yes, we all fervently hope that these cases are outliers and we all fervently hope that they do not reflect the nature of the majority of psychiatrists.We agree that there are "serious questions" about the practices of the psychiatrists in these cases. But it should be noted that neither of the named psychiatrists worked in a vacuum. Both Dr. Keraga and Dr. Braun practiced their outlier therapies in accredited hospitals, in plain view -- and with the implicit endorsement -- of their professions. Both were well known psychiatrists and were well known in their communities.
Dr. Braun was well known as a international authority in his field, indeed, he served as President of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation where he exhibited his then-patient, Pat Burgus, as a stellar example of his work. Both Dr. Keraga and Dr. Braun are still practicing psychiatry. If a profession cannot or does not curb the extreme "outliers," what confidence can the public have? What does it say to the public that nothing has yet been done, not one statement written, to discredit space-alien-abduction-abuse, past-life-abuse, satanic ritual abuse therapy or all the other "outlier" therapies? What does it say to mental health consumers that no professional organization has taken any steps to prevent its members from engaging in risky practices that endanger the public?
If professionals who have given approval to "outlier" practice by their silence do not want external restrictions, they must act to solve what they claim is a small problem. One puzzles over Dr. David Spiegel's description of people who are addressing a public health problem as a "militant, aggressive advocacy group." Does the FMSF Advisory Board statement fit that description? We think it is reflection of professionals who do have a sense of social responsibility and who feel obliged to try to protect the public.
PAMELA
[1] Grinfeld, J. (12/1997) "Criminal Charges Filed in Recovered Memory Case: Psychiatrists Liable for Millions in Civil Suits," Psychiatric Times.
**********************************************************************Dear Friends,
F M S F O U N D A T I O N N E W S L E T T E R (e-mail edition)
September 1998 Vol 7 No. 7
**********************************************************************
The legal action filed in August by the Illinois Department of License and Inspection to revoke Bennett Braun's license is another significant and related event. Bennett Braun, M.D., whose recent $10.6 million settlement with a patient received national attention, was key to the development and spread of recovered memory therapy practices. He was a founder of International Society for the Study of Multiple Personality (now ISSD) whose journals and conferences taught others about techniques for recovering "repressed memories."
"Every MPD patient in the country owes a personal debt of gratitude to Buddy [Braun]. He's the first ever to get a unit set up for these people, and all the other units around the country followed the trail he has blazed," said Richard Kluft, M.D. when honoring Braun in 1994.[1] Gloria Steinem credited Braun in Revolution From Within, thus ensuring the support of the women's movement.
PAMELA
[1] quoted in Keenan, M "The Devil and Dr. Braun", New City, June 22,
1995
________________________________________________
Controversial Psychiatrist Faces Loss of License Illinois Department of Professional Regulation v. Braun.
No. 1998-10343-01 [3]
The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation issued a nine-count complaint outlining how, according to officials, Chicago psychiatrist Bennett Braun nearly destroyed the lives of a family he treated during the late 1980s. The complaint is the first step in the state agency's move to strip Dr. Braun of his medical license. It alleges gross negligence; dishonorable, unethical and unprofessional conduct; making false or misleading statements; and improper prescription of controlled substances. According to Thomas Glasgow, chief of medical prosecutions for the Department, Braun used irresponsible combinations of Halcion, Xanax, sedatives, hypnotic psychotropic drugs, and prescribed Inderal, a blood pressure drug, at levels "that weren't even animal-tested at the time."
Glasgow is quoted as saying, "[Braun] misused the course of treatment of multiple-personality disorder the way a surgeon misuses a knife. . . The problem here is that someone with an inordinate amount of trust, who was caring for extremely fragile and susceptible psychiatric patients, misused both his prestige and his medical ability." Through conferences, videotapes and seminars, Braun, 58, has helped train many of those now treating multiple-personality disorder around the country. A preliminary hearing before a Department of Professional Regulation administrative judge is scheduled for September 28. Braun's attorney, Harvey Harris, declined to comment other than to say he believed most of the sensational press coverage surrounding the case to be false. According to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (8/13/98), Dr. Braun has been sued by five former patients.
Four of the suits were filed in the last 3 years in Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois and one was filed this year in the U.S. District Court in Illinois. While details of the allegations vary, the suits contend that Braun misdiagnosed his patients as having multiple personalities and dredged up false memories that included accounts of murder, incest, rape, satanic worship, human sacrifice or other traumatizing events. Two of the suits have been settled without admission of liability on the part of Braun, while the others are pending. Last October, Braun and Rush-Presbyterian paid $10.6 million to Burgus to settle a civil lawsuit against them. The amount is among the highest ever in a false memory case.[4]
[3] See FMSF Brief Bank #203 for copy of Complaint. See also C.
Grumman, Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98
[4] See FMSF Newsletter November and December 1997.
__________________________________________________
All Defendants Settle in Illinois Malpractice Suit Shanley v. Braun, et al. U.S. Dist. Court, Ill., No. 95 C 6589. In December 1997, a U.S. District Court rejected a motion to dismiss a psychiatric malpractice claim brought by Mary Shanley against her former psychiatrist Bennett Braun and 17 other individual and corporate mental health care providers in the Chicago area.[7]
Since then, all parties have amicably resolved their differences and the case has been settled for a confidential amount. Mary Shanley was represented by Zachary M. Bravos of Wheaton Illinois. Mr. Bravos also informed us that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, after a review of the evidence, has voluntarily agreed to remove Mary Shanley's name from the state registry of "indicated" child abusers[7]
Shanley v. Braun. et al., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20024, Memorandum Opinion and Order, docketed Dec. 10, 1997. At the time of the December 1997 decision, defendants included Bennett Braun, M.D., Dale Giolas, M.D., Forest Health System, Inc., Forest Hospital, Robert J. Simandl, Elaine Shepp, A.C.S.W. and David McNeil, M.D.
Several defendants including Karen Gernaey, Rush North Shore Hospital, Roberta Sachs, Raymond Kozial and Frank Leavitt had previously settled out-of-court. See also FMSF Newsletter, March 1998 and FMSF Brief Bank #42..
Editor's Note: Two state appellate courts recently considered the application of statutes of limitations in therapeutic malpractice cases. Earlier decisions in other jurisdictions have recognized the particular difficulties patients receiving so-called Recovered Memory Therapy may have in understanding their injuries. [8]
[8] See, e.g., Shanley v Braun et al., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20024. Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Dec. 10, 1997; Lujan v Mansmann, et al, 956 F. Supp. 1218 (E.D. Pa., 1997); Lujan v Mansmann, et al, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14987.