Posts Tagged ‘deriliction of duty’

“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


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



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.


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

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

Sunday, January 18th, 2009






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

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.



John    or Kent, Ph.D.

Psyc Slog1st

ENCLOSURES seven pages


December 22, 2004


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 FreeIIfan (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:savV 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


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 programetiVOCal 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 insufficientto 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

“The Thought Police” RFI number 08-21 Daniel Christiano, Ph.D.

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009


Sometime a while back clients were assured almost complete confidentiality; however, over the course of time laws were enacted requiring psychologists to report upon their clients. This, of course, destroyed the relationship between a psychologist and the client, but that didn’t matter. All that mattered is that “feel good” legislation was passed and that it felt as though the government was “taking control.”


While this has proven to be beneficial in certain cases, but in many cases it has been a disaster. For one, there is no longer “a safe place.” There is no more confidentiality, anywhere. Records are subject to subpoena and psychologists are subject to being forced to testify against the best interests of their clients. We have become “The Thought Police.”


My last supervising psychologist during my 4 1/2 years of postdoc internship & residency, Louis Masur, III, Ph.D., Clinical Director lamented that he lost 19% of his business because of this change in statutes. Once mandated reporting became the law, it was no longer necessary for psychologists to weigh the costs & benefits of notifying authorities about possible child abuse, exploitation or neglect. They needn’t think about the possibility of destroying a fragile relationship. Nor did they need to think about the benefits achieved and the current status of the child even when the child was completely safe under the current circumstances of treatment. All that mattered was one was required to report upon threat of being charged with a felony for failure to report as mandated by law.


So, while mandated reporting as required by legislated mandate made it a “no-brainer” and removed any stress from the psychologist regarding whether or not to report, mandated reporting destroyed many therapeutic and beneficial relationships. Dr. Louis Masur lamented that he lost 19% of his practice due to this. Those were parents who appeared in his office because they feared that they might be possibly harming their child because of the discipline they were administering


Generally, it was a mildly “neurotic” concern because the parents were not harming their child but it was so difficult for them to administer appropriate discipline including corporal punishment. It was neurotic meaning it was an unfounded fear, but at least at that time prior to the change in statutes they could go in confidence and seek the opinion of the professional and be assured that they were not harming her child without fear of being it turned into law enforcement and/or the power of the state. They would seek and receive the sense of support they needed in rearing their children properly. For the vast majority it was really merely a confirmation that they were doing what was right.


For a few parents they were trying to work through their leftover issues from their own childhood including discipline. This is not an uncommon experience. Often as we progress along the trail rearing children we are reminded of our past and we get to relive our own childhoods to a certain extent. And work through them again and resolve them, hopefully successfully, as we rear our home children. This is why the lyrics “as the child is the father of the parent” make so much sense.


Nonetheless, the fact is that in many ways state legislatures have attempted to turn psychologists into “The Thought Police.” During my training I learned one critical aspect: that is there is no relief in the statute from the requirement to report. Even should the matter have already been reported or even if it’s actually been adjudicated, psychologists are always required to report reasonable suspicion of child abuse, child exploitation, or child neglect. All it takes is a simple phone call and a corresponding entry in the client’s files.


It is the psychologist’s prerogative but the psychologist’s duty. It is not the psychologist’s choice but the psychologist’s imperative—regardless of what he or she thinks. We are not allowed to consider our own value judgment. At times we are forced to ignore our clinical judgement and even our gut feelings.  If there is any reasonable suspicion, we are forced to report to authorities.


In a certain sense this makes it easier for psychologists. Why? Because we don’t have to think about it; we merely have to do it. We have to perform the behaviors required by law. Most statutes provide for protection for psychologists who filed a report in good faith.


But it would be better if we were not required to report. For one, in those many instances that we know the child is safe and we can conduct therapy confidently knowing that the child is safe, we must risk losing the therapeutic relationship with the parents or parents because of obligations and our duty to report. For another, multiple reports may have already been filed and the authorities often vocalize their frustration over receiving another report about the same matter they have for over and over.


Also, when it involves a crime, it is not our duty to collect evidence nor is it our duty to prosecute; nonetheless, police and other authorities often try to impose unreasonable duties upon us. These include collection of evidence, possibly revealing diagnoses, treatment methods and prognosis when such confidential matters have nothing to do with the possible child abuse by the interrogators merely seek power is beyond what they actually need and/or are entitled to.


In many ways it would be better to create “safe places” by removing such mandated reporting especially redundant mandated reporting. Nonetheless, we as a society have seen fit to make it a felony to fail to file a report. When we come upon a case in which a psychologist has failed to file an obvious we mandated report, we sometimes try to “accommodate” and “excuse” that psychologist’s failure in order to avoid such serious criminal prosecution.


As in all such matters today things all too often and so quickly take out a political overtone. For instance should the psychologist who fail to make the report be a conservative or a registered Republican, then we hold their feet to the fire and we burn them. On the other hand should the psychologist who failed to file the report be a liberal or a registered Democrat, then we bend over backwards to make excuses for them and avoid having to enforce the “feel good laws” with all of their terrible penalties that we once thought were so wonderful we eagerly engaged in creating them making it a life changing event when a professional might be prosecuted for dereliction of duty, failure to report.


Such is the case in RFI Number 08-21 Daniel Christiano, Ph.D. When I heard the case presented and defended before the State of Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners Complaint Screening Committee on Wednesday, December 17, 2008, my immediate reaction was to acknowledge that the psychologist had failed in his mandated duties to file a proper report and that a “letter of concern” should be entered into his file and no more action be taken.


However, then I thought I heard significant confusion over “who is the client.”  Then again I thought I heard that Dr. Christiano was assigned a duty by the court to protect the child.  It appeared Dr. Christiano may have never met the child and that the report was filed against him as part of a child custody strategy or in retaliation.  Whatever it is doesn’t matter.  It was stupid to fail to file a report, especially considering it appears it was a court ordered matter subject to even more litigation.


But does Christiano deserve prosecution of a felony?  Strictly speaking, it appears the law has been broken and it requires enforcement.  The punishment is a felony conviction.  But is that justice?  No, there is no provision for “mercy” or relief in the Arizona Revised Statures.  Nonetheless, a couple of CSC members bent over backwards trying to accommodate logically why this psychologist failed to make his report.  There is no justice in laws that are not enforced and there certainly is no justice when laws and their consequences are so tightly (rigidly and nonfunctionally) written so that a judge is denied the option to show mercy.


In this case, a letter of concern placed in Dr. Christiano’s file is the least action the Board may take.  However, they are certain to consider “dismissal” in order to remove the possibility of felony prosecution. 


We need more “flexible” laws that are more functional and enforceable.  The motivation of the complainant is also highly questionable.  This is further evidence for the need to change complaints before the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners from “fully privileged” to “partially privileged.”