Malicious Intent

Malicious Intent

By David R. Corder

Associate Editor

It started with a telephone call about two months ago between Brandon attorney Joel Fein and St. Petersburg psychologist Michael Eastridge, and quickly escalated from there. Now Fein accuses Eastridge of libel.

Neither professional would comment about the lawsuit Fein filed Dec. 23 in the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. But the complaint tells of a professional relationship that splintered over an apparent miscommunication between the two. The dispute apparently poses some potentially serious business consequences for each of their professional practices.

Over the past 15 years, Fein carved out a niche as a general practitioner in the Brandon marketplace with a focus on bankruptcy, estate and Social Security law. The University of Miami School of Law graduate relocated to Brandon following about three years at the Miami-Dade Public Defenderis Office.

Last year an unnamed client, referred to in court records only as John Doe, retained Fein to represent him in a Social Security disability claim. During consultations with Fein, the client disclosed that Eastridge had conducted a psychological examination in support of an unrelated workersi compensation claim the client had filed in Ohio.

While preparing for a hearing, Fein and the client agreed that Eastridgeis exam for the workersi comp claim could benefit the client in his Social Security claim.

On Nov. 16, Fein called Eastridge to get permission to use results of the workeris comp exam. During that conversation, the lawsuit states, Fein suggested he draft a summary letter of Eastridgeis evaluation. Fein then drafted the letter and faxed it to Eastridge for his review.

iIf you agree with the contents of the letter, please sign and fax a copy to my office and follow with a hard copy via mail,i Fein wrote to Eastridge. iIf you feel it necessary to modify the letter in any way, you may do so on your own letterhead or contact my office and we will be happy to do that for you.i

The next day, Eastridge sent the client a letter that contained serious accusations.

iYour attorney, Joel Fein, called me to discuss your disability claim, but he did not retain me to perform any evaluation, review any records or write any report,i the lawsuit states. iInstead, he prepared a letter, forged my letterhead, typed my name and license number at the closing and asked me to sign it if I agreed to it. I will not do any such thing.i

That wasnit the only letter Eastridge mailed. He sent a letter to Ohio workersi comp officials and another to the chief administrative officer for hearings and appeals at the Tampa Bay offices of the Social Security Administration. The letter apparently contained a copy of the letter Fein drafted, but Eastridge omitted the cover letter.

In those letters, Eastridge repeated the accusation that Fein forged his letterhead. The psychologist also claimed Fein urged him to attest to an evaluation that he had not done.

On Nov. 22, Fein and the client attended a Social Security hearing before administrative Judge Tony Eberwein. Just before the hearing began, Eberwein asked Fein about the contents of Eastridgeis letter and then canceled the hearing.

The judge told Fein he intended to forward the letter to his division chief for review and possible action.

iJudge Eberwein advised Fein that Fein had no obligation to discuss the contents of the letter and warned Fein not to discuss the matter because anything he said could be used as evidence against him,i the lawsuit states.

Fein claims Eastridge embarked on a malicious campaign to libel him.

iEastridge had the ability to call Fein and complain or discuss the proposed letter if he wished,i the lawsuit states. iInstead, he chose to write, publish, to both the client and the Social Security Administration letters besmirching Feinis professional character and conduct.i

The lawsuit claims Eastridgeis actions threaten to destroy Feinis livelihood, impaired his reputation in the community and subjected him to personal humiliation and mental anguish.

iFein has never been placed under special scrutiny from the (Social Security) Office of Hearings and Appeals and has never had his good name and reputation besmirched among the judges and court personnel,i the lawsuit states. iDue to the effect of Eastridgeis letters, (the client), Judge Eberwein, the staff at the Social Security Office of Hearings and Appeals and the Ohio workersi compensation organization were given cause to question the integrity of Fein and have been implanted with some question as to Feinis ability to deal fairly with the administration.i

Besides libel, Fein accuses Eastridge of tortuous interference with a contractual relationship and interference with an advantageous business relationship. Filing as a pro se litigant, Fein pleads for the extraordinary measure of punitive damages. If Fein doesnit prevail, he could be responsible for Eastridgeis attorneys fees and court costs. The court docket does not specify who represents Eastridge.