State supervision program

[psychma]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have a couple of mental health diagnoses that I am careful to treat and monitor by professionals.

I had my car accident in October that I’m still recovering from. I cannot walk without a walker, but at least I am no longer in a wheelchair. The physical problems, inability to leave my home, etc began causing emotional stress. I went to part-time.

Enter patient 1. Admitted to significant sx on the PAI and when interviewed, gave a full report. We later did the SCID which resulted in a non-autism dx. He was furious. Absolutely livid. His therapist refused to talk to me after calling me a liar. The client harassed me endlessly in ways I won’t disclose. I’m keeping this obscure. These details are all close but no cigar. The result of this was that I took a 2- month leave from work. I’m not blaming this client. It was just the straw that broke the camels back.

I got a call from the state supervision program that this person complained about my fitness to practice. I know it’s client 1 because the wording of the complaint was exactly the same as this client used with me.

I was told I either cooperate or they turn me into the board. It was very aggressive. Had the intake meeting and she said I had to release all medical and mental health records so she would know if I was being honest. Then asked super intrusive questions. Based on my answers I was told 2 years supervised practice 😳. But she said that could change to more after getting my records. She demanded last full 6 therapy and med provider notes.

I think this is @ss ridiculous and I haven’t complied yet. My therapist and I talked about highly sensitive topics recently unrelated to my fitness to work. I think I deserve privacy. I get the protect the public thing, but I just took two months off of work by myself recognizing that physical and emotional stress was getting to me. I was proactive about monitoring myself.

What about my rights? I have emails and phone messages proving endless harassment. I’m not allowed to take action against a crazy client but they can take action like this against me? How is this fair? Also, how is simply having a history of ptsd and ocd enough to warrant two years of supervised practice? W T giant F?

This has been the worst experience. At this point, I am considering just closing my practice and working as a greeter at WalMart. Seriously, how can one disaffected client have so much power? I’m sick over this.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I'm sorry. Have you consulted a lawyer?

 

[WisNeuro]

HPSPs have a decent amount of leeway, which is good and bad. I would agree about the lawyer. There is usually an appeals process if one disagrees with the stipulations. After that, there is the legal route, just depends on how much you want to pay.

 

[PsyDr]

Step one is always "lawyer up".
Step two is always "keep your mouth shut".

It might sound expensive. But it is cheap, compared to the cost of supervision, drug testing, etc.

 

[psych.meout]

That's terrible, sorry you're going through this. Definitely seems like lawyer time.

Seems like an odd situation too, with this therapist probably telling them that they had ASD or affirming ASD self-diagnosis while being unqualified to Dx ASD. They probably thought your eval was perfunctory and would affirm what they already believed to be true. Also seems like that aggressive intake person was breathlessly believing the patient and their therapist and came into the situation already assuming you were at fault.

More generally (for anyone familiar with this stuff), is it required to do that intake or is it possible to be represented by a lawyer at that stage as well and get out of the invasive interrogation? Not trying to Monday morning quarterback you, I just want to know more about this for future reference, as I'm a post doc right now.

 

[WisNeuro]

That's terrible, sorry you're going through this. Definitely seems like lawyer time.

Seems like an odd situation too, with this therapist probably telling them that they had ASD or affirming ASD self-diagnosis while being unqualified to Dx ASD. They probably thought your eval was perfunctory and would affirm what they already believed to be true. Also seems like that aggressive intake person was breathlessly believing the patient and their therapist and came into the situation already assuming you were at fault.

More generally (for anyone familiar with this stuff), is it required to do that intake or is it possible to be represented by a lawyer at that stage as well and get out of the invasive interrogation? Not trying to Monday morning quarterback you, I just want to know more about this for future reference, as I'm a post doc right now.

Most states have an HPSP, or equivalent. Our state psych association had a liaison with that entity. Psychologists in the program were relatively rare in our state, like single digits, and were usually fairly major issues so we usually just attended meetings/read reports and everything carried on. But, I've heard some stuff from other states about some overstepping.

While it can sometimes be related, this is separate from Board of Psych complaints and actions. Though, the board can refer someone here after a complaint.

 

[psych.meout]

Most states have an HPSP, or equivalent. Our state psych association had a liaison with that entity. Psychologists in the program were relatively rare in our state, like single digits, and were usually fairly major issues so we usually just attended meetings/read reports and everything carried on. But, I've heard some stuff from other states about some overstepping.

While it can sometimes be related, this is separate from Board of Psych complaints and actions. Though, the board can refer someone here after a complaint.

Interesting.

What is usually the order of operations between these orgs? Do psychologists get referred directly to the HPSP or do they normally get sent to the psychology board first, who then refers them? Seems weird to get directly sent to this and have all these demands and stipulations placed on OP without someone else reviewing the situation/complaint and contacting OP to get their side of the story first.

Could this be because of the involvement of the patient's therapist, who maybe made or was involved in the complaint, vs. when it is only solely patients complaining?

 

[psychma]

I forgot the best part. When

That's terrible, sorry you're going through this. Definitely seems like lawyer time.

Seems like an odd situation too, with this therapist probably telling them that they had ASD or affirming ASD self-diagnosis while being unqualified to Dx ASD. They probably thought your eval was perfunctory and would affirm what they already believed to be true. Also seems like that aggressive intake person was breathlessly believing the patient and their therapist and came into the situation already assuming you were at fault.

More generally (for anyone familiar with this stuff), is it required to do that intake or is it possible to be represented by a lawyer at that stage as well and get out of the invasive interrogation? Not trying to Monday morning quarterback you, I just want to know more about this for future reference, as I'm a post doc right now.

This therapist vehemently disagreed. I can’t say why but they did.

 

[psychma]

I wish I could say what the complaint was. It was so frivolous and not truly mh related. It was a vague grasp at a symptom that isn’t even a serious thing.

 

[psychma]

I have contacted a lawyer now. Thank you

 

[WisNeuro]

Interesting.

What is usually the order of operations between these orgs? Do psychologists get referred directly to the HPSP or do they normally get sent to the psychology board first, who then refers them? Seems weird to get directly sent to this and have all these demands and stipulations placed on OP without someone else reviewing the situation/complaint and contacting OP to get their side of the story first.

Could this be because of the involvement of the patient's therapist, who maybe made or was involved in the complaint, vs. when it is only solely patients complaining?

I can only really speak to the psychologist aspect, and only for my state. But, providers get into the program from a variety of ways. Rarely it's from a patient complaint, a good deal are self-referrals, some were from other providers referring them, and some were a consequence of a board complaint. Hard to speak about trends, as the n's were relatively small for psychologists. As to stipulations from the program itself, it's fairly individualized depending on what the issue is, so really hard to say. I'd just recommend the appeals/legal process if one felt that they should not be in the program.

Involvement from the patient's therapist, if they got involved, definitely could have moved this along. If I was getting legal involved, I'd want to know exactly what they submitted.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I agree with not talking to anyone until you get a lawyer. This sounds to me like one of those thinly veiled “helpful” measures that is in actuality adversarial. It is why I am against coercive treatment programs. That being said, mandating treatment as a result of a legal action is different and makes a lot of sense. It just can’t be part of the same entity or even have too much synergy with regulatory or legal bodies.

 

[jdawg2017]

First off, OP I’m so sorry this happened to you. I’m glad you are seeking legal counsel.

I’m curious from a learning perspective (and not recommending this), but in the case of a truly frivolous referral to HPSP expedited by another provider is that grounds for a counter lawsuit against the other provider (and/or the patient, but more so as a last resort?), assuming the referral/compliant is adjudicated as such. If noting the else, if I was in OPs shoes I’d want to recoup legal fees and any lost wages, not to mention libel damages if applicable. The other therapist in this scenario should probably know better if we are taking OP at face value.

 

[psychma]

Spoke to an attorney with all details. Told not to cooperate and tell them to report me to the board.

 

[WisNeuro]

First off, OP I’m so sorry this happened to you. I’m glad you are seeking legal counsel.

I’m curious from a learning perspective (and not recommending this), but in the case of a truly frivolous referral to HPSP expedited by another provider is that grounds for a counter lawsuit against the other provider (and/or the patient, but more so as a last resort?), assuming the referral/compliant is adjudicated as such. If noting the else, if I was in OPs shoes I’d want to recoup legal fees and any lost wages, not to mention libel damages if applicable. The other therapist in this scenario should probably know better if we are taking OP at face value.

Bar for defamation/libel going to be very high in these cases. State public interest boards are generally going to err on the side of protections for reporters. Also, you generally have to prove malice. So, even if one could go that route, it'd likely be a minimal chance of success, and fairly costly. For best advice, consult a non-shady lawyer. Easier said than done.

 

[psych.meout]

Bar for defamation/libel going to be very high in these cases. State public interest boards are generally going to err on the side of protections for reporters. Also, you generally have to prove malice. So, even if one could go that route, it'd likely be a minimal chance of success, and fairly costly. For best advice, consult a non-shady lawyer. Easier said than done.

Seems like even if there was some kind of fault on the hands of the other therapist that, barring something especially egregious (e.g., making knowingly false statements), a court or licensing board would not go with some kind of judgment or consequences for the therapist to avoid a chilling effect for reporters.

That said, per WisNeuro's comment, it would be interesting to see what this other therapist actually reported, if anything, to the HPSP. That would inform whether there was anything actionable against them.

 

[WisNeuro]

Seems like even if there was some kind of fault on the hands of the other therapist that, barring something especially egregious (e.g., making knowingly false statements), a court or licensing board would not go with some kind of judgment or consequences for the therapist to avoid a chilling effect for reporters.

That said, per WisNeuro's comment, it would be interesting to see what this other therapist actually reported, if anything, to the HPSP. That would inform whether there was anything actionable against them.

It would generally have to be a clearly factually incorrect statement, and you'd have to prove that the other provider knew this was factually incorrect and made the statement with malice. You'd have to see what your specific state laws say both about reporting and protections for reporters in these instances, as well as defamation/libel laws in the state. They vary quite a bit.

 

[psychma]

It would generally have to be a clearly factually incorrect statement, and you'd have to prove that the other provider knew this was factually incorrect and made the statement with malice. You'd have to see what your specific state laws say both about reporting and protections for reporters in these instances, as well as defamation/libel laws in the state. They vary quite a bit.

I have evidence to support my claim including ai recordings,pai results, and email admissions as well as voicemails. ? Panic panic

 

[WisNeuro]

I have evidence to support my claim including ai recordings,pai results, and email admissions as well as voicemails. ? Panic panic

Definitely document everything and don't say anything without talking to your lawyer first. I'd be careful about the PHI without having the legal go ahead first.

 

[psych.meout]

It would generally have to be a clearly factually incorrect statement, and you'd have to prove that the other provider knew this was factually incorrect and made the statement with malice. You'd have to see what your specific state laws say both about reporting and protections for reporters in these instances, as well as defamation/libel laws in the state. They vary quite a bit.

Yeah, I figured it was somewhat similar to defamation with malice, but with the added rub of not necessarily being able to use all the available information to succeed in your case (i.e., PHI that hasn't been released by the patient).

 

[borne_before]

WHEN IN DOUBT, LAWYER OUT!