Introduction & Counts
 

The Plaintiff, Yong Li (“Li”), hereby filed this complaint against the Defendant Renee Sorrentino, a psychiatrist, for the Defendant had used mental evaluation as a means to vent her personal anger and to punish the Plaintiff’s untamed character. The Defendant provided inaccurate, misleading and incomplete information and baselessly concluded that the Plaintiff had high “risk of suicide” and lack of capacity to make decision regarding medical treatment. The Defendant’s report resulted in a civil commitment of the Plaintiff. Defendant’s conduct constituted in violation of three counts:

Count I: Defamation
Count I: Tortious Interference with Advantageous Relationship and

1.      The Plaintiff Yong Li was an ex-software engineer in Raytheon.

2.      The Defendant Renee Sorrentino was a psychiatrist in the Massachusetts General Hospital (“MGH”). Her address is 25 Staniford St, Boston, MA 02114-2503 (617) 626-8000.

Facts

5.      To relieve her agitation and to punish the Chinese woman’s untamed character, the Defendant falsely stated in the report that the hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff’s mental condition as “delusional disorder.” In fact, the diagnoses given by the hospital was “rule out (r/o) delusional disorder.” The Defendant intentionally caused a civil commitment to the Plaintiff by providing a bad mental evaluation.

6.      Further, the Defendant counted the Plaintiff’s English barrier as a symptom of mental disorder. She listed the Plaintiff’s word with grammar errors as evidence in her report.

7.      When the Plaintiff said that she did not want to suicide in the court house, the word in the report became she said that “she was never suicidal”. The Defendant knew or should have known that she should not take word out of the context.

8.      In the 36 minutes interview, the Defendant did not ask the Plaintiff’s mental history and did not know that the Plaintiff had history of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Defendant did not know that the Plaintiff had suffered suicidal thought when PTSD occurred and each time the Plaintiff called 911 for help. However, the Defendant diligently searched the Plaintiff’s internet blog and found out that back to 2004 when the Plaintiff was first time traumatized by a social worker in Raytheon, the Plaintiff suffered suicidal thought. Thus the Defendant established so-called “inconsistent suicidality” based on the 2008 “she was never suicidal” [out of the context] and the 2004’s traumatic experience.

9.      The Defendant also counted the Plaintiff’s lack of psychiatric terminology (English) into mental disorder.

10.  Third, the Defendant attempted to mislead people to believe that the Plaintiff tried to commit suicide with respect to an event in courthouse. The Defendant selectively wrote down in her report that “she [the Plaintiff] jumped with a rope around her neck in order to gain public attention.” The Defendant did not write down that the rope was also around the torso.

11.  The word “jump” is a misleading, because the Plaintiff actually rappelled down a rope and had her hands scratched. The wounded hands were showed to Defendant during the interview.

12.  During the interview, the Plaintiff repeatedly pointed out that it was not a real suicide with respect to the event courthouse. The Plaintiff explained that she pretended to have a symbolic suicide in order to push the court to review her case and to protest the court’s depriving her due process. The rope the Plaintiff used was held the torso for holding body weight, and the rope around the neck was symbolic and it was under the hood in case to scratch the skin, and the tie of the rope was unmovable so that it could not cause strangle. The Defendant selectively wrote the word “neck” and ignored the word “torso,” and this is intentional and misleading.

13.  Finally, the Defendant miss-characterized the Plaintiff’s plan of using internet, e.g. youTube, to gain publicity as “remains at risk of engaging in dangerous behaviors.”

14.  As a result of the Defendant’s inaccurate, misleading and incomplete information, the Plaintiff was committed by Boston Municipal Court and forced to take severe antipsychotic medication.

15.  The Plaintiff was discharged on November 7, 2008, while the whole treatment was a traumatic experience. The Plaintiff had to go to Emerson hospital for a real treatment.

16.  The Emerson hospital diagnosed that the Plaintiff suffered Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and not functioning on delusional level, and that the Plaintiff was competent to make decision.

Count II:
(Tortious Interference with Advantageous Relationship)

18.  The actions of the Defendant set forth above constitute Tortious Interference with Advantageous Relationship under common tort law.

 
  Count III:
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)  19.  The actions of the Defendant set forth above constitute Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress under common tort law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Yong Li requests that this Court order the Defendant to pay Li Emotional distress damages, punitive damage, and any other relief to which Li may be entitled.