Archive for December, 2008
Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners
Complaint Screening Committee
17 December 2008
Re: RFI No. 08-19, DAVID MCPHEE, PH.D.
In addition to what the Board already has in writing, the Board needs to know this. It was not until our third 90-minute session Dr. McPhee failed to mention a possible conflict of interest. During that next to last meeting, Dr. McPhee revealed he had previously hired and supervised Mary M. Desch, MD and in the past had worked closely with Dr. Desch.
In spite of the fact it became apparent earlier during the assessment that I had had a terrible experience with Dr. Desch and there was a possible conflict of interest because of Dr. McPhee’s prior relationship with Dr. Desch, rather than recuse himself from the case, a forensic assessment, and consider refunding my monies, Dr. McPhee continued to press on with his assessment emphasizing he thought he could help me with the Board. “I think I can help you,” he said over and over until . . .
It was not until Dr. McPhee heard about the history of inmates’ deaths due to malpractice, other crimes and cover ups at ADOC that Dr. McPhee demonstrated a complete change in demeanor & attitude. There was a significant transformation in his presence & presentation and it was readily observable. It occurred right at and after the moment of that particularly sensitive & succinct disclosure.
Finally, I am not so certain Dr. McPhee did his own work and worked independently. That is, rather than provide an independent workup and assessment, it appears Dr. McPhee may have relied upon the work of others, namely Dr. Desch.
However, let’s put this in context. In contrast to Dr. Desch, Dr. McPhee’s conflicts of interest and Dr. McPhee’s conflicted nature (fear of involvement in a case of corruption of elected State officials and appointees) pales in comparison. At the outset of the assessment Dr. McPhee answered my query and assured me he did not know my former wife Maria Kleine, whereas, Dr. Desch refused to answer my question in spite of the fact she had treated my former wife from October 2005 until approximately May 2006.
During her assessment Dr. Desch demonstrated gross counter transference often grimacing and she appeared deeply disturbed. Desch repeatedly answered her own questions without giving me a chance to open my mouth, to respond. Desch “fabricated” my “self-report” in order to support her erroneous conclusions and harsh recommendations.
My Presentation 17 Dec 2008 Before the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners RFI No. 08-23 TREZISEMonday, December 29th, 2008
Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners
Complaint Screening Committee
17 December 2008
Re: RFI No. 08-23, John Trezise, Ph.D.
What this Board needs to know is that Dr. John Trezise has a history and a pattern of targeting subordinates and coworkers. Rather than use his position and skills as a supervising psychologist to shore others up, Dr. Trezise has targeted others unfairly in a sick manner. Besides me I personally know three other mental health professionals he has targeted and harassed.
My concern is Trezise has a history and, although I have no professional opinion, it appears somewhat pathological. I remember Dr. Trezise commenting to me candidly and often about his “paranoia.” His words not mine. Even during our last discussion in April 2006 on site at Special Management Unit II at the Arizona State Prison Complex—Eyman, he mocked himself and his own paranoia: “You know, my paranoia.”
This Board stands apprised and needs to look into the sadistic nature of Dr. Trezise’s interactions in targeting his subordinate co-workers. Rather than shore up & build up other employees, Dr. Trezise has a history of targeting others unfairly for termination.
Since I stopped working for Dr. Trezise, I am certain he has targeted other employees. Moreover, I am confident he will continue his pattern of targeting others rather than attempting to groom them and help them develop. In fact, right now he is probably working upon another subordinate.
Lastly, Dr. Trezise knows exactly how he got his position as head of the Sex Offender Treatment Program at Florence—West, the private penitentiary. More importantly, Dr. Trezise knows exactly why Dr. Arnold was fired (getting caught in the act of having sex with her inmate patient by nursing staff), yet Trezise has failed to make the requisite report due this Board.
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.
Maxine McCa-thy Executive Director
Marcus E. Ha ‘vey Deputy Director
David S. Shapro Investigator
Shari S. Cour.nay Administrativ( Assistant
Maryann Santos de Barona, Ph.D. Chairperson
James J. Cox, Ed.D.
Vice-Chairperson Joseph C. Donaldson
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
January 18, 2005
John Kent, Ph.D.
Cook Unit, P. 0. Box 3500 Florence, AZ 85232
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.
Maxine McCarthy Executive Director
WI/CSC complaint la boilerplate
P.O. Box 2325
Florence, Arizona 85232-2325
December 29, 2004
Board of Psychologist Examiners
State of Arizona
1400 West Washington, Suite 235
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Re: Susanne Arnold, Ph.D.
Arizona Licensed Psychologist #3316
Florence, Arizona 85232
Work (520) 868-4011 ext 5208
Pager (602) 271-5068
Lack of Professionalism & Ethical Violations
Dear Board of Psychologist Examiners:
My complaint is two fold. As a licensed psychologist in the State of Arizona, it appalls me that another licensed psychologist behaves thus.
The first part of my complaint is rather simple and succinct, yet it shows a lack of professionalism and demonstrates concerns about Dr. Arnold’s ability to practice psychology ethically. This concern is somewhat limited; nonetheless, I anticipate the Board at least issuing a Letter of Concern to Dr. Arnold correcting and educating this licensed psychologist. This may include some remedial training in ethics or whatever the Board deems beneficial and necessary for the safe practice of professional psychology in the State of Arizona.
On November 9, 2004 at approximately 9:45 AM, I called my former supervisor Dr. Arnold to see how she wanted me to deliver psychological testing materials to her for safe keeping and how she wanted me to transfer the two interstate compacts upon which I was working. Shortly after the conversation began, Dr. Arnold went into a tirade and the conversation deteriorated. It became very one-sided. I tried several times to dissuade Dr. Arnold from further comment on matters not directly related to the business at hand, but she was relentless. I tried to get her to desist from further conversation but she would not stop. Dr. Arnold insisted that I listen to her and her bitter and derisive statements. She prefaced these with the qualifier: “I’m going to tell the truth.”
Sensing that the conversation was headed in the wrong direction, I tried to end it. Dr. Arnold pressed on: “You probably don’t want to hear what I have to say, but you have a lot of deep problems. I mean you are very disturbed.” Dr. Arnold continued to assert that I was very deeply disturbed without any regard for my well-being or for professional boundaries. The statements had nothing to do with clinical practice, nor were they work related. Moreover, there a distinct lack of an appropriate expression of concern for my welfare.
These were not a job related statements. Nor was it said in a manner to support my growth and professional development. Moreover, there was no open chart nor she did have permission to treat me. She violated professional boundaries and attempted to use her psychological expertise as weaponry to harm me.
It is unethical for any psychologist to practice without an informed consent to treatment. It is unethical for a psychologist to treat without having a chart opened. It is unconscionable for a psychologist to attempt to use her tools to undermine the health and well-being of another person, especially if that person is another psychologist. Furthermore, it is unethical to attempt to practice on one’s subordinates and it is a violation of professional boundaries and ethics to attempt to do so. In my opinion, it is more heinous than forming a dual relationship.
I request that the Board investigate this matter. It is my hope that Dr. Arnold will admit her errors. And I anticipate the Board instructing Dr. Arnold on proper professional behavior and boundaries becoming a licensed psychologist in the State of Arizona.
It is impossible for me to approach Dr. Arnold informally to resolve this matter, and I suspect she will resist the Board bringing this query to her attention. It is imperative that psychologists be trained properly in professionalism and ethics in order to assure the safety of the public. For myself, I seek only an apology, and for our profession, I ask the Board to educate and redirect Dr. Arnold.
Some of my last communications with Dr. Arnold concerned the behavior of a former employee, another licensed psychologist, who was reported in our weekly staff meeting last summer to be marrying a former inmate-patient less than a year after the termination of therapy.
Dr. Ann Middaugh, Psychologist [Arizona License #3258] left DOC in September 2003. Only a few months had passed when I heard about this last summer. This was well under the two years recognized by the APA Code of Ethics as required before a relationship with a former patient could even be considered. I was told by Mr. Johnson that Dr. Middaugh saw this client every week in therapy for two years up until the time she left DOC in September 2003.
According to a master’s level clinician, Darrel Johnson, Psychological Associate II at ASPC-Florence North Unit [work (520) 868-4011 ext 5741, pager (602) 271-1423], Dr. Middaugh testified upon her future husband’s behalf against DOC in approximately May 2004:
‘She ratted DOC out [sic] and told the Court everything bad that DOC had done to the inmate. . . . The inmate is described by men and women alike as gorgeous, as an Adonis. . . . It’s on record that he had murderous impulses since the age of eight. . . . He filed [for permission to marry] at Baker Ward [DOC’s inpatient mental health unit] after being there inpatient for almost a year.’
I reminded Dr. Arnold of her responsibility as Supervising Psychologist III that she must report her former subordinate to the Board. At one time, since Dr. Arnold was not responsive, in a motivational manner, I appealed to Dr. Arnold to call this other psychologist and see if how ‘salvageable’ she might be. Nonetheless, I know that matters regarding sex with a patient are extremely serious and that these cannot be resolved informally. These require Board notification.
No one should remain a licensed psychologist who shows such poor boundaries that they marry a client. There is also the possibility of sex with a patient, felony sexual battery typically punishable by a two year sentence. And perhaps even the possibility of sexual relations with an inmate, which brings an even higher seven year sentence.
Dr. Arnold refused to bring this to the attention of the Board yet suggested I could make the report. However, I was not Dr. Ann Middaugh’s supervisor while she was employed at DOC and practiced at ASPC-Florence East Unit. I have no access to the charts nor do I know the inmate’s name that is reported to have named Dr. Middaugh on his Request for Marriage Form filed approximately June 2004. In short, I have no direct evidence of Dr. Middaugh’s reported indiscretion. I am however reporting our supervising psychologist’s failure to report this matter to the Board appropriately.
It appears this failure to report to the Board may be based on gender discrimination. Dr. Arnold would likely file charges against a male psychologist but refused to file a complaint against her female subordinate.
In these matters, I place my confidence in the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners to take appropriate action.
John Kent, Ph.D.
Sweet success after two months of shaping! Curly was undersized and had I known he was an adult, I probably never would have tried to toilet train him as it involved a lot of stress on him.
Curly was so malnourished when I got him off the street I assumed he was a young adolescent. Six months after we found each other I took him to the vet (about a month after these photos) and discovered he had a chip. I responded to that chip and after three weeks went by without a response, I initiated a series of calls. The former owner finally informed me I could keep Curly.
He had left her house a year and a half earlier after her daughter’s big black lab moved in. Funny, now Curly has his own big black lab-pit bull, Diesel.
Apparently, Curly had been on the street for a full year before I got him. He lived in a storm drain and whenever I went for my run in the morning to avoid the heat, Curly would run along the top of the block wall to greet me. After about six weeks I realized that this strange cat was waiting each morning at 4:30 for me. If I arrived too early or too late, I would miss him.
The Dr. Kent Show
Giving Psychology Away
The mission of The Dr. Kent Show in Giving Psychology Away brings the best expertise in psychology to the public at large pro bono, that is, for free. The Dr. Kent Show confers a critical awareness of practices in mental health to assist those in need to choose the best treatment modalities available.
If you have something significant to contribute to the public at large, you may qualify as a guest on The Dr. Kent Show. Contact me using my contacts page and let’s discuss soon the possibility of your guest appearance on my show.