Frank Colistro had told KOIN 6 News he was shot during two different hostage negotiation operations
By Dan Tilkin
KOIN 6
Published: July 14, 2014
Frank Colistro, an influential Portland psychologist, told KOIN 6 News he was shot twice in the line of duty.
He now admits that was a lie.
Colistro is one of only five psychologists the Oregon Parole Board uses to evaluate inmates to help determine if they’re ready to be released from prison. He’s weighed in on countless cases, including very high-profile murders and rapes.
The entire story is here.
Showing posts with label Law and Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law and Psychology. Show all posts
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Jodi Arias Trial: The Importance of Forensic Psychology Guidelines
By MICHAEL J. PERROTTI, PHD
World of Psychology Blogs
I have served as a clinical and forensic neuropsychologist expert witness for over twenty years. It is of utmost importance that an even playing field be created in adversarial proceedings.
What is conducive to this is use of forensic guidelines as standards by all experts involved in a case.
The Jodi Arias trial depicts apparent omissions of important standards that could influence outcome of assessment. There was a lack of collateral interviews, which the Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence (RMSE) addresses.
In addition, there were other omissions that I believe are important to the outcome of the Jodi Arias trial.
The entire blog post can be found here.
Jodi Arias Trial: Teachable Moments in Forensic Psychology can be found on the Video Resources page of this blog
APA's Forensic Guidelines can be found on the Guides and Guidelines page of this site
World of Psychology Blogs
I have served as a clinical and forensic neuropsychologist expert witness for over twenty years. It is of utmost importance that an even playing field be created in adversarial proceedings.
What is conducive to this is use of forensic guidelines as standards by all experts involved in a case.
The Jodi Arias trial depicts apparent omissions of important standards that could influence outcome of assessment. There was a lack of collateral interviews, which the Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence (RMSE) addresses.
In addition, there were other omissions that I believe are important to the outcome of the Jodi Arias trial.
The entire blog post can be found here.
Jodi Arias Trial: Teachable Moments in Forensic Psychology can be found on the Video Resources page of this blog
APA's Forensic Guidelines can be found on the Guides and Guidelines page of this site
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Parity Laws: Powerful Weapon--or Pipe Dream?
By Heidi Anne Duerr, MPH
Psychiatric Times
Originally published May 6, 2013
Is true mental health parity really possible, even with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)? It’s beginning to look like the answer is maybe–but only with a fight.
Across the US, the war for parity is being fought, with numerous law suits asking courts to help ensure the law has real bite. In the meantime, does this mean patients without legal support and know-how are going without proper care—or that real parity is just a pipe dream?
Just recently, the US District Court for the District of Vermont was the first court to interpret and support the MHPAEA.1 In this case, the plaintiff alleged Fletcher Allen Health Care Inc, the plaintiff’s health plan administrator, violated the parity law “by imposing, both in writing and in practice, more stringent reviews for mental health benefits than are imposed for medical benefits.”
Specifically, the complaint noted the insurer “conducts prospective and concurrent medical necessity reviews of routine, outpatient, out-of-network mental health office visits while … [the plan] conducts no such reviews for comparable medical office visits.” In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the plan “imposes a numeric cap on the number of routine outpatient visits participants may request before pre-approval is required for all subsequent medical necessity reviews.”
Meanwhile, the New York State Psychiatric Association filed a class-action suit against UnitedHealth Group for violating both federal and state antidiscrimination laws. Among other complaints, the suit noted UnitedHealth Group denied or delayed access to care and required continuing authorizations for psychotherapy, intensive outpatient treatment, and partial hospitalization.
The entire story is here.
Psychiatric Times
Originally published May 6, 2013
Is true mental health parity really possible, even with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)? It’s beginning to look like the answer is maybe–but only with a fight.
Across the US, the war for parity is being fought, with numerous law suits asking courts to help ensure the law has real bite. In the meantime, does this mean patients without legal support and know-how are going without proper care—or that real parity is just a pipe dream?
Just recently, the US District Court for the District of Vermont was the first court to interpret and support the MHPAEA.1 In this case, the plaintiff alleged Fletcher Allen Health Care Inc, the plaintiff’s health plan administrator, violated the parity law “by imposing, both in writing and in practice, more stringent reviews for mental health benefits than are imposed for medical benefits.”
Specifically, the complaint noted the insurer “conducts prospective and concurrent medical necessity reviews of routine, outpatient, out-of-network mental health office visits while … [the plan] conducts no such reviews for comparable medical office visits.” In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the plan “imposes a numeric cap on the number of routine outpatient visits participants may request before pre-approval is required for all subsequent medical necessity reviews.”
Meanwhile, the New York State Psychiatric Association filed a class-action suit against UnitedHealth Group for violating both federal and state antidiscrimination laws. Among other complaints, the suit noted UnitedHealth Group denied or delayed access to care and required continuing authorizations for psychotherapy, intensive outpatient treatment, and partial hospitalization.
The entire story is here.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Suspect in Killings Is Deemed Not Fit
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 7, 2013
A judge ruled on Monday that a man accused of killing seven people at a small Christian college in Oakland is not mentally fit for trial.
Judge Carrie Panetta of Alameda County Superior Court temporarily suspended the case against One L. Goh after two psychiatric evaluations concluded that he had paranoid schizophrenia.
David Klaus, an Alameda County assistant public defender, said after Monday’s hearing that Mr. Goh’s condition causes him to have hallucinations and delusions and to distrust people, including those trying to help him. Mr. Goh’s lawyers have trouble talking to him, Mr. Klaus said.
The rest of the story is here.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Jury to set damages in abuse case
By Annysa Johnson
JSOnline - Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel
Originally published May 22, 2012
The entire story is here.
Thanks to Ken Pope for this lead.
See the linked story.
JSOnline - Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel
Originally published May 22, 2012
 |
| Fr. John Patrick Feeney |
The jury in a landmark sex abuse case against the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay is expected to take up the issue of punitive damages Wednesday.
An Outagamie County jury on Monday awarded $700,000 to brothers Todd and Troy Merryfield, who were molested as children by the now defrocked Father John Patrick Feeney in the 1970s. Jurors found that the diocese defrauded the Merryfields because it knew Feeney was a danger to children and assigned him to their parish without telling members of his history.
Thanks to Ken Pope for this lead.
See the linked story.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Info dump yields $40K settlement
By Bryan Cohen
Legal Newsline
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced on Wednesday that a Charlotte doctor has paid $40,000 for allegedly dumping files that contained patients' financial and medical information.
Dr. Ervin Batchelor owns and operates the Carolina Center for Development and Rehabilitation, which is a psychological testing and treatment facility located in Charlotte. In June 2010, the facility allegedly disposed of 1,000 patient files illegally by dumping them at the West Mecklenburg Recycling Center.
The files allegedly contained health information, insurance account numbers, drivers' license numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses and names for 1,600 people.
"Any business you entrust with your information has a duty to keep it safe," Cooper said. "Sensitive financial and health information should never be carelessly dumped, putting customers and patients at risk of identity theft."
Under a state law Cooper pushed through the General Assembly in 2005, businesses that dispose of records containing personal identifying information must destroy or shred those records so that identity thieves can't retrieve information from discarded files that have been carelessly thrown away. Medical records also face added restrictions under federal health privacy laws.
The Carolina Center records were recovered by Mecklenburg County, N.C., officials, who contacted Cooper's office.
As part of a settlement, Batchelor paid $40,000 and agreed to abide by both federal and state laws that protect people's personal financial and health information.
The Carolina Center has already notified the patients whose information was placed at risk. State law requires businesses, as well as state and local government agencies, to notify consumers if a security breach may have put their personal information at risk. The breaches of security must also be reported to the Consumer Protection Division. Since state laws on security breaches took effect in 2005 and 2006, a total of 889 breaches involving information and more than 3.3 million state consumers have been reported.
Cooper's CPD has won settlements in multiple other document dumping cases, including against a Gastonia, N.C., movie rental store, two mortgage lenders from the Charlotte area and a Greensboro, N.C., urgent care clinic.
Legal Newsline
Dr. Ervin Batchelor owns and operates the Carolina Center for Development and Rehabilitation, which is a psychological testing and treatment facility located in Charlotte. In June 2010, the facility allegedly disposed of 1,000 patient files illegally by dumping them at the West Mecklenburg Recycling Center.
The files allegedly contained health information, insurance account numbers, drivers' license numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses and names for 1,600 people.
"Any business you entrust with your information has a duty to keep it safe," Cooper said. "Sensitive financial and health information should never be carelessly dumped, putting customers and patients at risk of identity theft."
Under a state law Cooper pushed through the General Assembly in 2005, businesses that dispose of records containing personal identifying information must destroy or shred those records so that identity thieves can't retrieve information from discarded files that have been carelessly thrown away. Medical records also face added restrictions under federal health privacy laws.
The Carolina Center records were recovered by Mecklenburg County, N.C., officials, who contacted Cooper's office.
As part of a settlement, Batchelor paid $40,000 and agreed to abide by both federal and state laws that protect people's personal financial and health information.
The Carolina Center has already notified the patients whose information was placed at risk. State law requires businesses, as well as state and local government agencies, to notify consumers if a security breach may have put their personal information at risk. The breaches of security must also be reported to the Consumer Protection Division. Since state laws on security breaches took effect in 2005 and 2006, a total of 889 breaches involving information and more than 3.3 million state consumers have been reported.
Cooper's CPD has won settlements in multiple other document dumping cases, including against a Gastonia, N.C., movie rental store, two mortgage lenders from the Charlotte area and a Greensboro, N.C., urgent care clinic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)