Archive for the ‘Request for Investigation (RFI)’ Category

Let the Public Trial Begin

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

We are about to begin a new path on Dr Kent’s Blog. Actually, this is the old path, the old issues I sought to make public. However, there is a lot to the story. It is very involved and it is much harder to understand it in it’s entirely than it is to convey it. Even trying to covey it is difficult.

For one, it is emotionally charged for me. It not only involves my professional life but my personal life. This includes my failed attempt at marriage; I tried to marry what turned out to be a sociopath, a scam artist whose only interest was in predating upon men. This is rather involved but we are going to get into it all. Well, most of it.

I am still recovering from the whole ordeal. Ultimately, it resulted in severely compromising my health and it may yet kill me. Nonetheless, I shall be posting as much of the hard evidence and documentation as I can publically. Please bear with me as I try to organize my presentation. My purpose is in merely getting this info out there. Others may organize it into a story or stories or a play or a movie later.

My purposes in this are (1) to make the story and the evidence available so that those who lost their loved ones to wrongful death may pursue justice. However, there is fat chance of this in Arizona! The courts and State bureaucracy are loaded with self-protecting fools who now suffer because of their dereliction of duty at the fate of the invading horde (illegal alien Mexicans and all) and ultimately nuclear annihilation.

Also, (2) I publish these matters to clear my name and reputation. I am merely a man, a sinner, a work I progress like all of you.

Finally, (3) I want to get this behind me and move on with my life. You see, the best revenge is to live a good life. Let the LORD Our God have all the vengeance.

About that nuclear annihilation, this (future) will not be the first time use of a nuclear device has been attempted on the Greater Phoenix Area. I blogged about the (past) first attempt years ago. It was a “dirty bomb” hauled in a foot locker by four Iraqi’s who were trying to get close to Palo Verde (the nuclear plant) to detonate it—only a sheriff’s deputy (one of Arpaio’s men) stumbled upon them.

The sheriff’s deputy was astounded that the four “Mexicans” did not respond when he told them in clear Spanish that they should unload the trunk and carry the load on their backs. That’s how close we came to getting “nuked” on our own soil!

Napolitano was Governor at the time and you never heard about it. I heard about it because people talk to me and tell me everything; moreover, God guides my steps and places me where He wants me—to hear from others and to help others—to receive His messages and, more importantly, to deliver His messages.

“You mean we haven’t heard the last of this yet?!” Maxine McCarthy, Former Executive Director Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners August 15, 2006

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

  Here’s the original PDF for the converted and cut & pasted  document below:  <right click>  and  <save target as>  to download

2008-05-10-complaint-orig

Stay tuned to Dr Kent’s Blog and tell everyone you know.

There is indeed a lot more to this story!

May 10, 2008

Sonja Bolf, Executive Director

Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 1400 West Washington, Room 235

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Via CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL

-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED‑

Re:                                                         Request for Investigation: Susanne Arnold, Ph.D.

Negligence and Neglect Leading to Unnecessary Loss of Lives and Other.

Dear Executive Director Sonja Bolf:

Attached is my completed formal Request for Investigation form. In 2005, I attempted to work closely with the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiner’s Investigator David S. Shapiro; however, rather than work with me on very serious concerns, Mr. Shapiro made some sort of report to the Board indicating that I was perhaps mentally unstable. Mr. Shapiro’s report, whatever it was, was cited by a Board member along with Dr. McCauley’s written response to the Board in a motion ordering me to undergo scrutiny at my expense. That was my second RFI generated internally by this Board.

Allow me to give you some history: After introducing myself to Mr. Shapiro in person at the Board’s office, I expressed my concerns over my duty to report to the Board in light of the overwhelming number of violations of our Rules & Regulations and Arizona Revised Statutes I observed. I asked Mr. Shapiro for advice on how I should handle these matters, and after discussing multiple concerns, Investigator Shapiro told me he thought I could not bring all of those matters to the attention of his Board. More importantly, Mr. Shapiro asked me to bring this complaint regarding the loss of life to the Board.

At that time, I was working within the Arizona Department of Corrections with other professional staff attempting to obtain identifying information regarding the victim(s). Nonetheless, due to the manner in which records are kept in ADOC, after a lot of time and effort, we were not able to obtain the information necessary to come forward with a pressing case. Notwithstanding, we knew several important things. Let me explain Dr. Susanne Arnold’s role in all of this:

Dr. Arnold hired a man who was not qualified to provide professional psychiatric services for ADOC. Dr. Arnold failed to check this applicant’s credentials. I believe, David Rupley, Jr., MD(H) worked at the Arizona State Prison Complexes in Florence and Eyman and other locations in ADOC providing psychiatric services.

Dr. Arnold knowingly signed off on this man’s hours even though she knew they were fraudulent. That is, he had not worked them and she allowed him to defraud the State of significant sums of money. This is why they retaliated against me and sought to destroy me by conspiring to bring false allegations of sexual harassment against me. See attachments. There is more, far more to the story.

Dr. Arnold refused to take necessary action to correct this man’s practice in psychiatry. Specifically, Dr. Arnold failed to correct Dr. Rupley in his failure to monitor the psychiatric medications he was prescribing. More specifically, for more than an entire year, she failed to require Rupley to follow the standard of care of the community, through Arizona and across the entire country. That is, some of these psychiatric medications have Black Box Warnings regarding the necessity to check liver profiles in order to avoid death by agranular cytosis, i.e. Depakote.

Moreover, I have reason to believe that Dr. Arnold knew about several unnecessary inmate deaths. All due to medication errors. All committed by Dr. Rupley between 2002 and 2003. YET, Dr. Arnold allowed Dr. Rupley to continue working at ADOC for at least another full year unimpeded and uncorrected! And Dr. Rupley in all likelihood was allowed to kill more men! Dr. Arnold enabled this horrible malpractice by David Rupley, Jr., MD(H)!

I also brought this to the attention of the Board’s next investigator. When she and I talked on the telephone, she became upset and yelled at me. She told me this Board was ill equipped to handle those matters. Moreover, she told me there were other agencies to which I should make my reports. I have followed her advice to no avail—other than to get myself targeted for more harassment from this Board.

Lastly, when I was notified of a fifth complaint against me before this Board (submitted by the former Director or Programs for ADOC who, by the way, resigned in lieu of termination for having committed real sexual harassment [quid pro quo]); I called the Board’s former Executive Director Mrs. Maxine McCarthy. I wanted to inquire as to the nature of the matter brought to the Board’s attention as no information was forthcoming other than an invitation to the Board’s hearing on August 18, 2006.

When I called Maxine McCarthy on approximately August 15, 2006, I was still reeling and recovering from my chemical ordeal subsequent to the improper discontinuation (under physician’s orders) of bromocriptine on March 30, 2006. In that condition, I was defenseless. Executive Director Maxine McCarthy tried to take me into her confidence. She asked me what was going on: “What’s going on? What’s been going on? You can tell me anything. It’s not going any further.”

While I was in bad shape, I still recognized that whatever I told her would be going further. I acted somewhat impulsively and I told her truthfully and candidly what was behind the efforts to retaliate against me. I told Mrs. McCarthy that there had been an unlicensed psychiatrist at ADOC. He killed several inmates with his medications, and they were trying to hide the deaths.

To which, McCarthy exclaimed and demanded: “You mean we haven’t heard the last of this yet?”

Straight forward,



Completed 2-page RFI form.

Enclosures (With One Complete Copy):

Personal Notes August 27, 2002, Personal Notes September 24, 2002 Personal Notes October 08, 2002, Personal Notes (b) October 08, 2002, Personal Notes October 24, 2002 (2p), Meeting Notes October 24, 2002 (3p hand written), Personal Notes October 24, 2002, Information Report October 24, 2002, Personal Notes November 26, 2002, Personal Notes January 14, 2003, Personal Notes February 11, 2003, Personal Notes February 24, 2003, Personal Notes February 24, 2003 (2p), Personal Notes March 03, 2003. Personal Notes (2p), Personal Mental Health Staff Meeting Notes 17 August 2004, Personal Notes August 18, 2004 (2p), Personal Notes August 18, 2004, Personal Notes August 31, 2004 (2p), Personal Notes October 26, 2004, Psychiatry Timesheet for “David Rupley Jr., MD” “Locum Tenens M.D,” 10/13 Central Unit Main Gate Sign-In Log Health Unit October 07, 2002, Personal Notes August 17, 2004 Mental Health Staff Meeting ASPC—Florence. Personal Notes November 6, 2004 Reassignment, August 24, 2005 Grievance #05-023 and #05-P-063 to ADOC Director Dora Schriro.

Cc:

Senator Linda Gray, Chairwoman, Public Safety and Human Services Committee Representative Jerry Weiers, Chairman. Natural Resources and Public Safety Committee Senate Senator Carolyn S. Allen, Chairwoman, Health Committee

Representative Bob Stump, Chairman, Health Committee

Senator Jay Tibshraeny

Representative Wade V. Nichols

Representative Stephen B. Yarbrough

Obama’s ASU Commencement Speech Holds Neither Water or Substance

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

 

Liar-in-Chief President Obama continues in his fine tradition of lying and deceiving.  Even I must admit Obama’s presentation is great.  But Barrack Hussein Obama’s teleprompter reading talents belong on the evening news rather than in the office of the American President!

 

Take my life as an example:  I lived for greater causes and, more specifically, I lived to help others better themselves.  I did this in the Alaskan Bush, in the Deep South and in Indian country. 

 

What I learned is that the world is ruled by raw power and those “illiberals” in political office abuse their power to protect their fellow criminals.

 

Take the Arizona Department of Corrections for example. 

 

While I made major contributions as best I was allowed to providing better services and releasing a “safer product,” the graft & greed in ADOC Mental Health and Counseling & Treatment Services was only exceeded by their audacity in using raw power to harm anyone who did his job according to the Arizona State Revised Statues (ASRS), all the Rule & Regulations and ADOC Policy.

 

In fact, Obama rewarded those culprits by appointing their chief-in-crime to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  And Janet took her lover Dora with her to Washington, DC. 

 

None dare call it nepotism.

 

While the minions below got away with murder, fraud, theft, rape, and all sorts of felonies. 

 

So, crime does pay—at least for those “illiberals” sharing the same philosophy—while lying, cheating and deceiving America and the US Treasury!

 

However, President Obama’s commencement address at Arizona State University is for me personally inspiring:

 

I shall continue to give my all to bettering those poor people who have been unable and are unable to defend themselves—especially those dead inmates. 

 

Schriro allowed the cover ups and ultimately Director Dora Schriro covered those murders up! 

 

While they literally buried the “evidence,” ADOC and Dr. Susanne Arnold and Dr. Pamela McCauley allowed the culprit to continue practicing & harming inmate patients and defrauding the State.

 

 

 

 

Board Notice RFI No. 08-04/TREZISE

Friday, March 6th, 2009

rfi08-04trezisenotice-0011

Above is the scanned accurate .pdf file giving notice of what is cut and pasted below:

March 25, 2008

John Kent, Ph.D. 933 W. Azalea Place Chandler, AZ 85248

Re:           RFI No. 08-04

Dear Dr. Kent:

The Board of Psychologist Examiners has received your Request for Investigation regarding John Trezise, Ph.D., and an investigation has been initiated. A copy of your complaint has been sent to the psychologist who will be required to respond to the Board, in writing. The psychologist’s response is confidential by law and will not be provided to you.

Please note that if you submit additional complaint information or documents, the Board is required to provide copies of that additional information to the psychologist for a response, which may cause a delay in the resolution of the case. Audio tapes, video tapes or compact discs submitted as part of your complaint must be accompanied by a certified transcript of the entire (not excerpted) proceeding or conversation.

Please be aware that once this case has been scheduled to be heard by the Board’s Complaint Screening Committee (CSC), the Board will be unable to accept additional information regarding this matter. Therefore, no supplemental documents or information will be accepted within ten (10) days prior to the scheduled CSC meeting date.

Please be advised of the following information regarding the Board’s investigative procedures: All investigative materials are reviewed by the Board’s investigator who may then contact the psychologist, the complainant and others to obtain additional information or clarify specific issues. The investigator then writes a report and provides the report and documentation to the Complaint Screening Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting. This is the CSC’s initial review of the case and is not a hearing. Please note that witness testimony is not taken unless the case proceeds to a formal hearing. Each and every time that a case appears on the CSC’s agenda, the complainant and the licensee (or their representative) who are present at the CSC meeting, and who wish to address the CSC regarding the complaint may do so by filling out a “Request to Speak” form (which is available at the CSC meeting) and providing it to Board’s staff. Presentations are limited to five minutes and there is no question/answer interaction with the Committee members at this time. An audiotape or CD of the Board’s discussion of the case may be purchased for a charge of $10.00 per audiotape/CD. Copies of the CSC Minutes may also be purchased at $0.25 per page; however, the Minutes often do not contain the details of the audio recordings.

RFI No. 08-04 Page Two

The CSC can vote to dismiss the case if it determines that the complaint is without merit, or refer the complaint to the full Board for further review and action. You will be notified in writing of the CSC’s decision. Enclosed is a schedule of the CSC’s meeting dates. You will receive a written copy of the CSC’s agenda indicating the date of the meeting in which the complaint will be reviewed.

The Board’s mission is to protect the public; however, the Board can only take action against a licensee when it has been determined that there is a violation of the Board’s statutes or rules. The Board cannot remove a psychologist from a particular case, overturn opinions or decisions made by a psychologist, or influence a court of law or a judge to disregard the opinion of a psychologist who has been appointed by the court.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (602) 542-3018.

Sincere
, A

Victoria Kamm, CI Board Investigator

Enclosure

Correction ADOC Interim Director Chuck Ryan: Advice for Governor Jan Brewer

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

 

Correcting the record per the disclosures posted by Iris on:

 

http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=2957#comment-102524

 

There is an error regarding Mr. Ryan and this is the only possible error of all that was posted.  In other words, all of it is true with the possible exception of the one statement that Mr. Ryan had been forced out of ADOC or ADC as the current web page under construction calls the Arizona Department of Corrections. 

 

I call ADOC or ADC something else, as one may see from the categories on my blog.  And the rest of The Valley shall soon refer to ADOC as the Department of “Corruption.

 

During my interview I mentioned it had been reported to me one of the superiors in ADOC had been “forced to leave ADOC upon threat of death;” however, my ability to recall names is somewhat impaired. 

 

I do not recall the name of the man who was forced to leave “due to his lack of support for Governor Napolitano” and walk off from ADOC and his ASRS retirement.  Perhaps it was Terry Stewart.

 

However, I recall the name and attributes quite well of the officer who confided those things in me.  It was given somewhat in confidence and accompanied by emotional frustration and disgust at how corrupt ADOC was and remains.

 

Nonetheless, I can tell you that Mr. Ryan has been the “Interim Director” of ADOC in the past, perhaps even many times.  Moreover, there is one hallmark, one characteristic that is unforgettable about Chuck Ryan:

 

Chuck Ryan was not well liked by the rank & file. 

 

In fact, to say that Mr. Ryan was “hated” would not be too strong.

 

Allow me to paraphrase a lifetime ADOC employee who knew Chuck Ryan intimately: 

 

‘Chuck Ryan was an asshole.  He was born an asshole and he’s always going to be an asshole.  He’s a short man.  He has “little man syndrome” (and “tan hair”).  He’s always going to be an asshole.  Everyone hates him!

 

Chuck Ryan has been disliked for years by the rank & file of ADOC security officers, administrative support & health services alike.

 

My advice to Governor Jan Brewer:

 

DO NOT CONSIDER CHUCK RYAN FOR DIRECTOR OF ADOC!

 

Unless the Governor wants to send a message to the hard working men & women at ADOC that the Governor doesn’t give a hoot for the men & women who work hard at ADOC!

 

 

 

RFI No. 05-04 MIDDAUGH

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

Why does the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners post some of its punishment and abuses on the open Internet for all to see on their Past Board Actions WebPages but failed to post the discipline given Psychologist Anne Middaugh?

Is this disparate treatment based upon gender?

Was this done to “protect” the State and the Arizona Department of Corrections?

Why was it not listed?

Why were neither of Psychologist II Anne Middaugh’s superiors consequated for their violation of the Rules & Regulations that require them to report such violations?

Why were neither Psychologist Susanne Arnold nor Psychologist Pamela C. McCauley consequated for their failure to report?  For dereliction of duty?

RFI No. 05-04 MIDDAUGH Outcome? ADOC’s Tradition of Falsehood

Friday, February 6th, 2009

 

 

While my attorney said he represented Dr. Anne Middaugh, the outcome of RFI No. 05-04 is difficult to determine.  In part because Dr. Middaugh is no longer listed as holding an Arizona psychologist license and there is no reference on the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiner’s WebPages on Past Board Actions to any action taken against this psychologist.  And in part because it appeared from his report that Dr. Middaugh was merely given a “slap on the hand” by the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners.

 

Please note I admired Dr. Middaugh’s presentation before the Board and her candor in her recorded presentation.  (See previous posting in my blog)  However, that does not mean the truth was completely told.

 

I was informed Dr. Middaugh was consequated with a 30-day suspension and assigned taking extra Continuing Education Units (CEU’s) (i.e. training) in “boundaries” and that was all.  It was reported to me that Dr. Middaugh informed the Board that she did not conduct “interpersonal therapy” with her new husband/former patient and ward of the State/ADOC inmate but, rather, ‘she had merely treated her husband for “substance abuse.”’

 

However, at the time it was against ADOC policy for psychologists or mental health staff to treat inmates for substance abuse.  For some time prior, all substance abuse treatment was delegated to the Corrections Officer III’s (CO III’s) otherwise known as “counselors” or “Care Bears” whose primary function is “classification” and the placement of inmates.  This was because of a turf battle over a tremendous amount of federal funding that used to be made available for substance abuse treatment.

 

Needless-to-say, mental health and health services lost that battle with Security to the CO III’s.  However, that has changed now that there is no funding for substance abuse treatment and Security has done its best to shuck off substance abuse treatment duties to mental health staff. 

 

Funny thing is one of the CO III’s at ASPC-F South Unit provided such wonderful substance abuse groups that I as mental health professional at ADOC was embarrassed!  It was cognitively based and even though Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was the only therapy approved for use in ADOC, I saw little to none of it conducted!

 

Back to my story, I was so impressed by this CO III, this Care Bear and his substance abuse treatment approach that when I caught wind his Deputy Warden wanted to shut his groups down and re-assign him towards more classification tasks, I bought the DW lunch and implored her to keep his program!

 

There is no treatment in ADOC in mental health.  For the most part it’s just like the rest of ADOC:

 

It’s a Paper Tiger.

 

ADOC’s Motto:

 

“If it’s not on paper, it didn’t happen.”

 

Likewise,

 

“We’ll make up and write up whatever lies we (ADOC) see fit to foist off, whatever “reality” we (ADOC) want—on the public, inmates and employees alike!”

 

 

 

An Open Email to the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

rfi-no-06-34

Via:

 

meghan.hinckley@psychboard.az.gov

 

victoria.kamm@psychboard.az.gov

 

info@psychboard.az.gov

 

 

 

Thursday February 5, 2009 7:51 AM

 

Regarding:  RFI No. 06-34

 

 

Dear Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners:

 

Be advised.  Long ago I detailed how to resolve this matter properly. 

 

I can stand more exposure, especially when it comes to the truth.  The question is:  Can you?

 

http://drkentshow.com/

 

http://drkentshow.com/wordpress/

 

http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=2957#comment-111325

 

 

Straightforward,

 

Dr. Kent

January 24, 2004 (2005) Request for Investigation (RFI) MCCAULEY, GOLDE, HOLLY-REPS

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

 

rfix320040124-001

 

 

 

Scanned Document

 

 

 

 

The Converted Document Below Lacks Accuracy; Therefore, Please see the Attached .pdf file and/or Scanned .tif file above for an Accurate Account.

 

 

Box 2325

Florence, Arizona 85232-2325 January 24, 2004

Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 1400 West Washington, Suite 235

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: Unprofessional Conduct
Ethics Violations

McCauley, Pamela #1949

Arizona Department of Corrections

1110 W. Washington Avenue, Suite 310

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

(602) 364-2912

Golde, Jeffrey #3421 Health Services

Cook Unit

P.O. Box 695

Florence, Arizona 85232

(520) 868-0201

Holly-Reps, Sherry #1254

Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman P.O. Box 695

Florence, Arizona 85232

Dear Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners:

From the EPPP all psychologists know that the purpose of licensing and regulating psychologists is for the safety of the public. This complaint is directly related to our responsibility as psychologists to protect the public.

Attached is a copy of documents in support of my claim of violations in ethics and in exerting undue influence upon a supervisee regarding responsibility, control, oversight and review [32-2061.A.13.(q)and(y)]. These are copies of my copy of the PACE entry in my ADOC Personnel File and my response.

I requested a copy of the original complaint by Dr. Jeff Golde; nonetheless, Dr. Holly-Reps, my direct supervisor, declined to give a copy of that written complaint to me. It appeared that Dr. Golde had either taken a complaint from an inmate patient and had typed it up or had joined with his inmate patient in writing a complaint about me.

On the day I was observing the Parole Board hearings for the first time, I was summoned to call Counseling and Treatment Services Program Director Dr. McCauley. Dr. McCauley called to inform me that because of what I wrote in my PACE response, she was going to

have to address some clinical issues with Dr. Golde. I informed Dr. McCauley that I would have preferred that Dr. Golde would have confronted me informally face to face as required by the APA Code of Ethics before writing it up and taking it to Dr. Holly. But as he had not allowed me the opportunity to clarify issues with him, I had not approached Dr. Golde informally.

Moreover, I do not believe that these are matters that may be addressed informally due to Dr. Golde’s violation of the APA Code of Ethics that requires an attempt at informal resolution prior to making a formal complaint. More importantly, it would have been beneficial for all involved to clarify the actual issues prior to escalating the false elements of the complaint into a written report.

Therefore, I wish to cite a violation of the American Association Code of Ethics, the standards that dictate the behavior of psychologists and distinguish psychologists from all others. Furthermore, when I called my immediate supervisor Dr. Holly to inform her of the telephone conversation with Dr. McCauley, Dr. Holly indicated that Dr. Golde had approached Dr. McCauley first with the complaint.  It was intimated that Dr. McCauley ordered
Dr. Holly to write up a PACE complaint and place a negative entry in my file. I will concede that I have no idea of exactly what was said to whom and in what order.

Accordingly, as Psychologist McCauley failed to redirect Dr. Golde to address me on an informal basis, I find Dr. McCauley also to have violated that provision of the APA Code of ethics as well. Even though we are working in a military styled bureaucracy, having and using the APA Code of Ethics and abiding by them would avoid much misunderstanding and the unnecessary escalation of complaints.

However, then is a more grave offense:

I felt pressured, and my master’s level colleague concurred independently and expressed concern that I was being pressured to write this inmate patient a clean bill of health without the benefit of being able to fully assess the inmate patient, to make this star graduate of the Sex Offender Treatment Program not-SMI.

As the inmate is fast approaching the date when he may appeal to the parole board, it appears he is attempting to minimize anything that might preclude his release, including his mental health status and history.

As a licensed psychologist, I am aware that I may NOT sign off on any work for which I have NOT assumed supervisory review, control and authority according to the Arizona Statues. Nonetheless, the Policies and Procedures of the ADOC appear to be contrary to the Rules and Regulations that govern our license as psychologists in Arizona. Therefore, I seek Board clarification on this matter.

According to ADOC Policy in the Mental Health Technical Manual written by Dr. Lutz and Dr. McCauley (April 1, 2000) under Local Procedure 4.1.3.2:

The actions of the treatment team .        . shall be arrived at

by  consensus.

This appears in contradiction to the ADOC organizational chart, which places psychologists at the head of the treatment teams and in contradiction to the Rules and Regulations under which our licenses are held, the Rules and Regulations that govern psychologists’ licenses. Moreover, I was not afforded the time necessary to make a reasonably certain decision regarding the inmate’s Severely Mentally Ill status. Nor should I have been pressured to make the inmate not SMI by the psychologist who had been treating him over a long period of time, who was more familiar with and knew the inmate patient better. And, especially not by a professional who had the authority to make such a determination and sign off on it himself as a psychologist.

These are delicate matters that may only be understood by other psychologists. Accordingly, I respectfully appeal to the board to review these matters and place my confidence in the Board of Examiners to decide and direct us to improve services for inmate patients and for the safety of the public at large.

Sincerely,

 

John    or Kent, Ph.D.

Psyc Slog1st

ENCLOSURES seven pages

NOTE TO PACE

December 22, 2004

EMPLOYEE COMMENTS

The accounting and_comments from the outset are not accurate.

Regarding the theokelitiCguggestion of charting one’s own course, the question of what one

would do ifoneaAaaaiiiiiilL on his path is a long standing therapeutic anc1AUOINational query. I

 _

did not inVentiii-41,               .        ur Free-II-fan (Beck, Freeman & AssocLatm-Gognitive Therapy

of Personalty DM G -rs;4990 ) readily employed it in training. And I have                     elsewhere.

 Upon review oftlaaxIatajw,- I observed-that the inmate had not been seenin accordance with the SDS Standards._ Therefore, I scheduled this inmate patient in order to comply with the standards. Both the master’s level therapist and administrative assistant told me Dr. Golde was the only one to seejhisinmate in therapy and that Dr. Golde did not want anyone else to see this inmate. This smacked of an inappropriate proprietary relationship; however, I needed to assure that we were in compliance with the standards as it is my responsibility. The inmate was not “referred to me for me to change his SMI status.’ Rather, I initiated the scheduling of the appointment and:s-avV the inmate.

However, after scheduling the inmate, Dr. Golde came in for his weekly scheduled day at Cook Unit. I consulted with Dr. Golde informing him that I had scheduled this patient, and then Dr. Golde told me he wanted fue to make the inmate NOT SMI. I felt an inordinate pressure from Dr. Golde to change this inmate’s SMI status. When I suggested to Dr. Golde that since he knew the inmate, and moreover since he wanted the inmate’s. SMI status changed that he [Dr. Golde]

should be the licenced psychologist signing off on this action as (1) I did not have the opportunity to observe the inmate over time and, more importantly, (2) the inmate did not meet the usual criteria under which we psychologists at DOC practice, Dr. Golde pressured me further to change the inmate’s status anyway.

This inmate patient did not meet the typical minimal criteria under which we practice. This inmate had not been successfully off psychiatric medications for a period of at least six months and, in my opinion, and as is the prevailing practice within DOC, it was premature to change the inmate’s Mental health score from a 3 to a 2 under such circumstances.

I was informed, perhaps incorrectly, that this was the number two graduate in the Sex offenders’s Program and that he is schedule for a review by the parole Board and has a fast approaching released ate. He is a short timer. When I suggested to Dr. Golde that he should be the one to change this inmate’s SMI status because he had seen him and knew him best, Dr. Golde urged me to sign off on making the inmate not SMI. I felt a pressure from Dr. Golde to sign off on this inmate– to, in effect, give him clean bill of health.

The inmate also pressured me to change his SMI status. Because I did not know the inmate and

q/7

because I was ill that day, and due to the seriousness of the possibility of changing this inmate’s SMI status, I ended up spending more time than usual with that inmate. Also the inmate took as much time as I was willing to give him as he had an agenda and a goal. In the process I learned quite a bit about this inmate and my sense is that inmate may NOT have benefitted from the Sex Offender’s Treatment Program and may in fact remain dangerous to the public.

I assessed the inmate’s gains and resped for the SOTP by asking the inmate to explain the program he had graduated. I know nothing of the program. Part of the complaint was that I

disagreed with the diagnosis. How was Ito make this inmate NOT SMI if his Bipolar Disorder _      

diagnosis was not in question? Anotartzi-the complaint was that I questioned the

of the SOTP programeti-VOCal in seeking out information aboarn… the program, it has not been forthcOnung: IVIOreover, how can Idisagree with the philosophyZifi

- program when I do not know the philo§ophy of that program?

During the PACE entry time with Dr. Holly, she, too, emphasized that I should have changed this inmate’s SMI status to no longer SMI. She said it should not have taken as much time as I gave it to change the inmate’s status. When I vocalized that I did not know the inmate and that the inmate did not meet our usual minimum criteria to be changed from SMI to non-SMI, Dr. Holly informed me that ‘Dr. Golde was no longer practicing general services on the unit.’ It was implied that I was to make the change in status on an inmate who had not met the minimal criteria by which we practice: He hadlibt been off psychiatric medications for at least six months and there was no indication that he did not need counseling services.

While treating the inmate, he continued to talk even when I became ill abruptly and had to rush for the sink. There was time to excuse neither myself nor the inmate. It was a brief period of time for my stomach upset, certainly not prolonged. I cleared my throat of minimal material. It was not fun. It was not pleasant. But I knew over the weekend that I was sick and I knew I was the only psychologist to cover the entire Eyman complex that Monday. However, because I had agreed to cover for another psychologist in advance, I went to work ill.

In fact, the FHA was present at Cook Unit Medical and I inquired as to how he thought I should handle it when I was sick and I knew there was no one else to cover. Rod Norris remarked, “You tough it out.” Rather than be applauded for my dedication to the team and my service, my sacrifice, I am being given a disciplinary PACE entry.

Notwithstanding, because I was able to give that much time to the inmate and observe the inmate patient under those circumstances, because he never stopped talking about himself even while I hit the sink and vomited, my provisional impression is that this inmate may have a 301.5 Histrionic Personality Disorder, Manipulative Subtype (Millon) and as such is not a candidate for psychotherapy. Moreover, because of the failure of the inmate to brag about the program he had just completed and his inability to explain the program to me, I surmise that the inmate may not have been treated successfully. Rather, the inmate’s talents in manipulation precluded him from successful treatment. In other words, had he been assessed by myself or a competent psychologist, the inmate may not have been considered for treatment. He certainly would not have received priority consideration for placement. Should there have been a waiting list, this

 

inmate may have been placed at the bottom as an unlikely candidate for therapy.

I could not sign my name onto this inmate’s plans for early release and place the public safety in jeopardy.

Finally, when my master’s level colleague informed me of her concerns that I might change the inmate’s status from SMI to no longer SMI, I listened. And I learned. She said that she was hoping the inmate might tell me himself He committed his offense while in a manic episode.

Frowaedge of the literature (Goodwin and Jameson), the classic manic episode occurs once E

-.-Thdefore, six months is insufficient-to detenninekwhether or not the

person  as amc-Depressive - Illness and thus qualifies for S statim. In other words, six - -

months.is_an Indequate test for the possibility of a Bipolar Type ,I Disorder. One must be obserAr.ed_ovesignificantly greater period of time.

_

Moreover, since the inmate had plenty of opportunity to establish rapport with me and since he didinof seek to work openly and honestly with me, I concluded that the SMI status should remain positive.

It saddens me to think that a fellow psychologist would pressure me to make his star pupil no longd SMI when he probably knows that the inmate represents a risk. It saddens me that my fellow psychologist and my supervising psychologist would both intimate that I failed by not changing the status of this inmate patient. I dare say that the treating psychologist may be too invested in himself and in his program to admit that this inmate may still be a danger to the

public. Why does he not sign off on the change in SMI status himself since he knows this inmate so well? Could it be that he is overly and inappropriately invested in the graduate of his Program?

pro        .

Moreover, I have a complaint against my colleague: If I suspected a fellow professional of knocking my program, I would approach him or her myself directly and inquire on an informal basis first before taking this to a higher lever. I would do this because it is required by the American Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics—Our Code of Conduct that defines what we do and who we are as psychologists The APA Code of Ethics requires that one psychologist approach another psychologist and seek to resolve ethical issues informally before making a formal complaint. Dr. Golde did not do this and as a result we have a gross misunderstanding—at my expense, of a disciplinary PACE entry.

More to the point, I do not think that Dr. Golde believes I knocked his program or he would have confronted me. Rather I think that Dr. Golde may be overly invested in his inmate patient graduate and may have taken this shot at me in retaliation for my having failed to follow his directive to make his prized student no longer SMI. Or perhaps his officemate down the hall in Central Office may have influenc

John Taylor Kent, Ph.D. Psychologist II

RFI No. 05-04 MIDDAUGH Complaint Screening Committee February 14, 2005

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

05-04am

 

During this brief .mp3 recording one can hear Dr. Anne Middaugh address the Complaint Screening Committee.  At the end of this brief three person Complaint Screening Committee (CSC) discussion one may hear the 2-1 vote to forward the matter to the full Board of Psychologist Examiners for review.

 

While the CSC voted to drop the charges (see my report) against Dr. Arnold, because Dr. Anne Middaugh was no longer a State employee, the Board elected to pursue Dr. Middaugh.

 

The CSC voted with the exception of one individual to refer Dr. Middaugh case to the full Board.  The sole dissenter was public member Joe Donaldson—Donaldson always votes to defend the State.  I suppose a successful “professional politician” knows he’d better support the State machinery and State employees least they not support him.

 

After hearing this recording, I recall drafting a letter in support of Dr. Anne Middaugh.  While Dr. Arnold denied any culpability and any wrongdoing, I was impressed by Dr. Middaugh because she faced the CSC and admitted what she had done and submitted to the Board.  Dr. Middaugh’s presentation was quite honorable under the circumstances.