Archive for the ‘RFI No. 05-02’ Category

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.

 

 

 

 

RFI No. 05-02 ARNOLD Complaint Screening Committee February 14, 2005

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

05-02sa

During this brief recording one can hear Dr. Susan Arnold address the Complaint Screening Committee.  At the end of this brief three person Complaint Screening Committee (CSC) discussion one may hear the vote to dismiss the charges against Dr. Arnold, including her failure to report. 

 

Consider this in light of the vote regarding the psychologist in question who married her inmate patient (see published recording of CSC 05-04AM.mp3). 

In my opinion, because Dr. Arnold was an employee of the State, the CSC voted to fall in step and voted to protect Dr. Arnold and hence the State and possibly ADOC.  While the CSC voted to drop the charges (see my report) against Dr. Arnold, in part 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 Joseph 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.

The Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiner’s Response to RFI No. 05-02 ARNOLD

Sunday, December 28th, 2008

rfi05-02arnold

The Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners dismissed my Request for Investigation (RFI) against ADOC Supervising Psychologist III Susan Arnold, Ph.D.  for failing to report her subordinate Psychologist II Ann Middaugh, Ph.D. for a set of serious boundary violations after Dr. Middaugh married her inmate patient in approximately May 2004.  Under the Rules & Regulations that govern psychologists licenses in the State of Arizona Dr. Arnold was obligated to report such a serious breech of ethics & professional boundaries.

On the morning of August 17, 2004 during our regular Mental Health Staff Meeting in the basement of the administration building at ASPC-Florence, I first learned of the marriage of Dr. Middaugh to her former patient.  Upon hearing that report from other staff, I immediately informed our supervisor Dr. Susanne Arnold of her duty as a psychologist to report this egregious matter to our licensing board. 

However, Dr. Arnold indicated clearly she was busy working on “a special assignment for Dr. McCauley” and she was leaving shortly to go downtown per Dr. McCauley’s directive.  It was during that trip that I believe Dr. Arnold posted the anonymous letter to ADOC Director Dora Schriro making false allegations that became part of the investigative file against me.  Mike King, MA, LPC, Psychological Associate II provided Dr. Arnold with some trivia about me which Dr. Arnold and her sidekick transmogrified into false allegations about me.

For the next few months, from August through November, I called Dr. Arnold on a regular basis, at least every other week, and on those occasions I implored Dr. Arnold to do her duty and report this serious breech of ethics and perhaps violation of Arizona Revised Statues.  On more than one occasion I reminded Dr. Arnold that at the least she needed to bring his to the attention of our superior Dr. McCauley. 

Finally, Dr. Arnold told me that I could report it myself.  However, that was problematic as ADOC requited following the chain of command.  Nonetheless, after being framed on false allegations of sexual harassment in obvious retaliation and after the relationship with my superior deteriorated to the point of name calling and improper use of psychological nomenclature in attempt to inflict harm on my person, I reluctantly and with great reservations finally filed my complaint.

As we shall see the matter was not addressed fully by ADOC staff to the Arizona Board of Psychological Examiners until the following year in May 2005.  More importantly, the first complaint was filed against my license in direct and obvious retaliation for my having filed my report as I was obligated under the Rules & Regulations that govern psychologists licenses, yet the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners in all its wisdom and accumulated intelligence failed to recognize that complaint for what it was—using them, the Board, to harm me.

This is the irony of “groupthink” and is just what happens when you get a bunch of liberals sitting in judgment of those with conservative values, especially when called to defend “other party members,” i.e. fellow liberals.

Attached above for your convenience is an accurate .pdf file of the Board’s letter.  A converted version is also posted below; however, it lacks the accuracy of the scanned .pdf version.  Nonetheless, it is included in the body of my blog to make it more searchable for internet search engines.

 

Staff

Maxine McCa-thy Executive Director

Marcus E. Ha ‘vey Deputy Director

David S. Shapro Investigator

Shari S. Cour.nay Administrativ( Assistant

Board Members

Maryann Santos de Barona, Ph.D. Chairperson

James J. Cox, Ed.D.

Vice-Chairperson Joseph C. Donaldson

Secretary

Wil R. Counts, Ph.D. Miki Paul, Ph.D.

Byron N. Rimm

Michael J. Rohrbaugh, Ph.D. David P. Yandell, Ph.D. Vacant — Public Member


 

State of Arizona
Board of Psychologist Examiners

1400 West Washington, Suite 235
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Phone: (602) 542-8162                       Fax: (602) 542-8279

www.psychboard.az.gov info@psychboard.az.gov


January 18, 2005

John Kent, Ph.D.

ASPC-Eyman

Cook Unit, P. 0. Box 3500 Florence, AZ 85232

Re:            ARNOLD/Kent

RFI No. 05-02

Dear Dr. Kent:

The Board of Psychologist Examiners has received your letter requesting an investigation regarding Susanne Arnold, Ph.D. The Board does not have jurisdiction over the conduct you describe in “Part 1″ of your December 29, 2004 letter, but we have opened an investigation regarding Dr. Arnold for the conduct you describe in “Part II” of your letter. A copy of your letter 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 provide supplemental complaint information or documents at this time, the Board will be required to provide copies to the psychologist for a response and this may delay the resolution of this case. Audiotapes, 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 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 (CSC) 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 staff. Presentations are limited to five minutes. 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.


      

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.

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 contact the Board’s Investigator, David Shapiro at (602) 54 3018.

Sincerely,

  

Maxine McCarthy Executive Director

WI/CSC complaint la boilerplate