WSSM-01: Herbert J. Grossman, M.D. Collection

The Grossman Collection relates to two main topics: Grossman's testimony in the Willowbrook State School legal case (Parisi, et.al., vs. New York) and his chairmanship of the American Association on Mental Deficiency's Terminology and Classification Committee. The Willowbrook related materials primarily consist of litigation records. In addition to the decisions in the case and the consent decree, these include Grossman's testimony and that of Frederic Grunberg, Ph.D., another expert defense witness. Grunberg was the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene in charge of Mental Retardation and Children's Services. Although other litigation records in this collection may be readily available elsewhere the Grossman and Grunberg affidavits are probably not readily available.

In addition to the litigation records, the Willowbrook component of the collection includes materials Grossman probably received on one of his visits to the school, as well as material he collected after his participation in the legal case had ended. The material related to the visit consists of a wide range of directional publications distributed to staff in the school's academic department and are of interest for revealing the duties of teaching staff, kinds of activities in which staff involved students, and institutional expectations of students.

Two items date from 1976, some time after Grossman's testimony. Of these, the most directly related to Willowbrook is an essay by Grunberg ("Program Analysis in a 'Right to Treatment' Litigation." ) that characterizes the nature of expert testimony in the Willowbrook case. The other item is a report by Philip R. Ziring, M.D. that communicates an assessment of medical services at Willowbrook and recommends improvements. Again these documents may not be available to researchers elsewhere.

The remainder of the Grossman Collection is primarily composed of drafts of the AAMD's Classification in Mental Retardation. Scant correspondence, few notes, and no meeting minutes make it somewhat difficult to understand the issues with which the committee dealt and identify points of disagreement. However, a close comparison of the various drafts may help in understanding these matters.