Adding Insult to Injury

A state Psychology Board recently hit one of its psychologists with a penalty that was perfectly tailored for the charges leveled against him.  It revoked his license for a minimum of five years.  It further held that if, by some unexpected turn of events, this doctor managed to get his license back, he would never be allowed to treat females.  It finally ruled that if he did get his license back, his practice would always be monitored by a Board-approved mental health professional.  By now, you can probably figure out the nature of some of the charges against Dr. A. 

From the mid-1980’s through 1996, Dr. A. provided psychotherapy to a female patient, referred to as “Client G.”  He initiated a sexual relationship with her from 1994-96.  The sex took place during weekly sessions.  The doctor billed the patient for those sessions.  While treating and having sex with her, he also made her a co-facilitator of a psychology group for sexually abused women.  He presented her to the group “in a way that suggested that Client G had qualifications as a mental health professional.”  I’m sure he billed for these sessions as well.  The Board also found that during this same period of time, Dr. A had an affair with Client R.

Meanwhile, Dr. A was also treating clients "S" and "M."  These women participated in group sessions for sexual abuse victims who had developed post-traumatic stress disorder.  On one occasion Dr. A called S to ask her to help M who was suicidal at the time.  The Board ruled that telling S that M was suicidal violated M’s privacy.  Dr. A argued that he made the call in an effort to save M’s life.  The Board dismissed this argument.

On appeal, Dr. A argued that it was error to allow “patient advocate” Board members to participate in hearing his case.  His state’s Psychology Licensing Act requires three board members to be members of the public “who are not mental health professionals.” Unfortunately, the statute refers to these members as “patient advocates.”  The Court threw out this defense because Dr. A offered no evidence of “specific bias or prejudice” on the part of these Board members.  

In a last ditch effort to save his license, Dr. A argued that Dr. Woodrow, one of the psychologist board members, should not have participated in his hearing.  He claimed that she was biased against him because she had treated patient “G.”  The evidence showed that almost 30 years before the hearing, Dr. Woodrow treated G.  However, she did not remember G and did not have records of her treating G. The Court found that this was not evidence of bias.

It’s hard to find a worse example of psychologist-patient abuse.  Dr. A chose a patient whom the Board described as “very vulnerable,” initiated a sexual relationship with her, charged her for the privilege of having sex with him, cheated on her, and had her misrepresent herself when she “facilitated” a group of sex abuse victims.  It is fortunate that the Board took this man’s license.  One can only hope he never gets it back.