Santa Monica’s Headspace Health laid off dozens of therapists. Their patients don’t know where they went

Jaimie Ding

The Los Angeles Times

Originally posted 7 July 23

When Headspace Health laid off 33 of its therapists June 29, patients were told their providers had left the platform.

What they didn’t know was their therapists had lost their jobs. And they suddenly had no way to contact them.

Several therapists who were let go from Headspace, the Santa Monica meditation app and remote mental health care company, have raised alarm over their treatment and that of their patients after the companywide layoff of 181 total employees, which amounts to 15% of the workforce.

After the layoffs were announced in the morning without warning, these therapists said they immediately lost access to their patient care systems. Appointments, they said, were canceled without explanation, potentially causing irreparable harm to their patients and forcing them to violate the ethical guidelines of their profession.

One former therapist, who specializes in working with the LGBTQ+ community, said one of his clients had just come out in a session the day before he lost his job. The therapist requested anonymity because he was still awaiting severance from Headspace and feared retribution.

“I’m the first person they’ve ever talked to about it,” he said. “They’re never going back to therapy. They just had the first person she talked to about it abandon them.”

He didn’t know he had been laid off until 10 minutes after his first appointment was supposed to start and he had been unable to log into the system.

The info is here.

Some thoughts and analysis from me.  There are clear ethical and legal concerns here.

Abandoning patients: Headspace Health did not provide patients with any notice or information about where their therapists had gone. This is a violation of the ethical principle of fidelity, which requires healthcare providers to act in the best interests of their patients. It also leaves patients feeling abandoned and without a source of care.

Potential for harm to patients: The sudden loss of a therapist can be disruptive and stressful for patients, especially those who are in the middle of treatment. This could lead to relapses, increased anxiety, or other negative consequences. In more extreme, but realistic cases, it could even lead to suicide.

In addition to the ethical and legal problems outlined above, the article also raises questions about the quality of care that patients can expect from Headspace Health. If the company is willing to abruptly lay off therapists without providing any notice or information to patients, it raises concerns about how they value the well-being of their patients. It also raises questions about the company's commitment to providing quality care.  Headspace may believe itself to be a tech company, but it is a healthcare company subject to many rules, regulations, and standards.

Experimental Regulations for AI: Sandboxes for Morals and Mores

Ranchordas, Sofia

Morals and Machines (vol.1, 2021)

Available at SSRN: 

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3839744

Abstract

Recent EU legislative and policy initiatives aim to offer flexible, innovation-friendly, and future-proof regulatory frameworks. Key examples are the EU Coordinated Plan on AI and the recently published EU AI Regulation Proposal which refer to the importance of experimenting with regulatory sandboxes so as to balance innovation in AI against its potential risks. Originally developed in the Fintech sector, regulatory sandboxes create a testbed for a selected number of innovative projects, by waiving otherwise applicable rules, guiding compliance, or customizing enforcement. Despite the burgeoning literature on regulatory sandboxes and the regulation of AI, the legal, methodological, and ethical challenges of regulatory sandboxes have remained understudied. This exploratory article delves into the some of the benefits and intricacies of employing experimental legal instruments in the context of the regulation of AI. This article’s contribution is twofold: first, it contextualizes the adoption of regulatory sandboxes in the broader discussion on experimental approaches to regulation; second, it offers a reflection on the steps ahead for the design and implementation of AI regulatory sandboxes.

(cut)

In conclusion, AI regulatory sandboxes are not the answer to more innovation in AI. They are part of the path to a more forward-looking approach to the interaction between law and technology. This new approach will most certainly be welcomed with reluctance in years to come as it disrupts existing dogmas pertaining to the way in which we conceive the principle of legal certainty and the reactive—rather than anticipatory—nature of law. However, traditional law and regulation were designed with human agents and enigmas in mind. Many of the problems generated by AI (discrimination, power asymmetries, and manipulation) are still human but their scale and potential for harms (and benefits) have long ceased to be. It is thus time to rethink our fundamental approach to regulation and refocus on the new regulatory subject before us.

Top German psychologist found to have fabricated data—University Investigation Finds Anxiety Expert Pressured Whistleblowers

Hristio Boytchev

Science  09 Apr 2021:

Vol. 372, Issue 6538, pp. 117-118

DOI: 10.1126/science.372.6538.117

Here is an excerpt:

Wittchen was one of the top epidemiologists of psychiatry, and TU Dresden “has benefited greatly from him,” says Jürgen Margraf, a psychologist at Ruhr University, Bochum, who has collaborated with Wittchen. “If the commission’s findings turn out to be true, they are very disturbing for the entire field, and that would also have an impact on TU Dresden.” Thomas Pollmächer, director of the mental health center at Ingolstadt Hospital, says the allegations are “startling.” He worries about other possible irregularities in Wittchen’s extensive publication record. “Some time bombs may be ticking,” he says.

The study in question was a €2.4 million survey of staffing levels and quality at nearly 100 German psychiatric facilities. Working for TU Dresden’s Association for Knowledge and Technology Transfer (GWT), Wittchen was the principal investigator of the effort, which aimed to examine workloads at the clinics and inform government regulations.

But in February 2019, German media reported allegations, stemming from whistle-blowers close to the survey project, that study data had been fabricated. The university launched a formal investigation, led by law professor Hans-Heinrich Trute.

After 2 years of work, the commission, in its final report, has found that only 73 of 93 psychiatric clinics were actually surveyed. For the others, the report says, Wittchen instructed researchers to copy data from one clinic and apply them to another.

 “The violations were intentional, not negligent,” the report says. “Wittchen wanted to appear more successful than he was.”

Wittchen told Science he would not answer detailed questions “because they are the issue of legal proceedings.” But he denies any wrongdoing and says the study in question was “scientifically correct.”

The investigation report also shows how Wittchen sought to avoid repercussions. 

In April 2019, he sent an email to Hans Müller-Steinhagen, president of TU Dresden at the time, warning him to “stay out of the project” and stop the investigation, because otherwise there would be a “national political earthquake.” 

The info is here.

Confronting bias in judging: A framework for addressing psychological biases in decision making

Tom Stafford, Jules Holroyd, & Robin Scaife
PsyArXiv
Last edited on December 24, 2018

Abstract

Cognitive biases are systematic tendencies of thought which undermine accurate or fair reasoning. An allied concept is that of ‘implicit bias’, which are biases directed at members of particular social identities which may manifest without individual’s endorsement or awareness. This article reviews the literature on cognitive bias, broadly conceived, and makes proposals for how judges might usefully think about avoiding bias in their decision making. Contra some portrayals of cognitive bias as ‘unconscious’ or unknowable, we contend that things can be known about our psychological biases, and steps taken to address them. We argue for the benefits of a unified treatment of cognitive and implicit biases and propose a “3 by 3” framework which can be used by individuals and institutions to review their practice with respect to addressing bias. We emphasise that addressing bias requires an ongoing commitment to monitoring, evaluation and review rather than one­-off interventions.

The research is here.

Universities Rush to Roll Out Computer Science Ethics Courses

Natasha Singer
The New York Times
Originally posted February 12, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

“Technology is not neutral,” said Professor Sahami, who formerly worked at Google as a senior research scientist. “The choices that get made in building technology then have social ramifications.”

The courses are emerging at a moment when big tech companies have been struggling to handle the side effects — fake news on Facebook, fake followers on Twitter, lewd children’s videos on YouTube — of the industry’s build-it-first mind-set. They amount to an open challenge to a common Silicon Valley attitude that has generally dismissed ethics as a hindrance.

“We need to at least teach people that there’s a dark side to the idea that you should move fast and break things,” said Laura Norén, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Data Science at New York University who began teaching a new data science ethics course this semester. “You can patch the software, but you can’t patch a person if you, you know, damage someone’s reputation.”

Computer science programs are required to make sure students have an understanding of ethical issues related to computing in order to be accredited by ABET, a global accreditation group for university science and engineering programs. Some computer science departments have folded the topic into a broader class, and others have stand-alone courses.

But until recently, ethics did not seem relevant to many students.

The article is here.

How Should Clinicians Treat Patients Who Might Be Undocumented?

Commentary by Jeff Sconyers and Tyler Tate
AMA Journal of Ethics. March 2016, Volume 18, Number 3: 229-236.
 doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.03.ecas4-1603.

Here is an excerpt:

Ethical Considerations

In terms of the ethical analysis of this case, there is no better place to start than the Hippocratic Oath. While the oath never explicitly states primum non nocere (first do no harm), a phrase it is often assumed to contain, it does give us the informative statement “Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick…whether they are free men or slaves” [10]. The normative claim implicit here is that it is the duty of the physician to take care of anyone who comes to him or her for care, regardless of that person’s societal status. This claim is intimately related to the principle of beneficence, which is a broad concept encompassing acts of mercy, kindness, charity, altruism, love, humanity, and a deep concern for the promotion of the good of others [11]. At times, the demands of beneficence can conflict with an agent’s desire for a comfortable life; this conflict will influence Dr. Connelly’s analysis of a relationship with Ms. Nunez.

We believe that if a patient has an acute life-threatening condition (for example, a stroke, respiratory distress, or ongoing blood loss), it is the physician’s moral obligation to treat him or her, except under rare and extenuating circumstances—such as certain risk of dangerous exposure, injury, or death from attempting treatment. (This moral obligation is different from the legal rules outlined above.) If a patient is in extremis, a physician must attempt to treat. However, these clear obligations need not apply in less acute scenarios like that of Dr. Connelly and Ms. Nunez.

The article is here.

Reason, Emotion, and Implanted Devices

by John D. Lantos
Bioethics.net
Originally published July 13, 2016

Pullman and Hodgkinson present a case that, it seems, should have been an easy one. A competent adult makes a simple request to discontinue a medical therapy. Further, it was a therapy that he’d already tried so personal experience informed his preference to discontinue therapy. His request was repeated over time. He was determined to have adequate decisional capacity. So why did both the physicians and the bioethicists consider this to be a difficult case?

There are certain cases that lead to such dilemmas. They are cases in which emotions tug us in one direction and reason tugs in another. The best example of this type of situation is the difference between withholding a treatment and withdrawing the same treatment. Bioethical principles suggest that these two actions are ethically equivalent. Legal precedent shows that the law treats them as comparable actions. Yet both health professionals and families say that the two actions feel very different. Another example is the difference between withdrawing life-support in a patient who is awake and alert compared to withdrawing life-support in a patient who is unconscious. If the diagnosis and prognosis are the same, then the fact of consciousness does not change the legality or morality of the action. But they feel very different.

The article is here.

What Kind of Legal Rights Should Robots Have?

By Jessie Guy-Ryan
Atlas Obscura
Originally posted March 12, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

So, to summarize the above: robots can’t give performances, aren’t animate objects, but can take possession of items as extensions of their operators. The entire paper is full of interesting, sometimes contradictory, cases, and well worth reading. But the varying precedents established combined with judicial metaphors advancing the idea that robots inherently lack autonomy, may create difficulties as robots—and, inevitably, legal cases involving robots—become more and more common and these narrow decisions and definitions become less and less accurate.

“The mismatch between what a robot is and how courts are likely to think of robots will only grow in salience and import over the coming decade,” Calo writes. He emphasizes the importance of exploring existing case law and establishing new institutions and agencies to provide knowledge and information to help guide courts.

The article is here.

Is Age a Determinant Variable in Forgoing Treatment Decisions at the End of Life?

Guest post by Sandra Martins Pereira, Roeline Pasman and Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen
Journal of Medical Ethics Blog
Originally posted May 14, 2015

Decisions to forgo treatment are embedded in clinical, socio-cultural, philosophical, religious, legal and ethical contexts and beliefs, and they cannot be considered as representing good or poor quality care. Particularly for older people, it is sometimes argued that treatment is aggressive, and that there may be a tendency to continue or start treatments in situations where a shift to a focus on quality of life in light of a limited life expectancy might be preferred. Others argue that an attitude of ageism might prevent older people from receiving treatments and care from which they could benefit, thus resulting in some type of harm and compromising the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.

When the need to make a decision about treatment concerns an older person at the end of life, physicians need to reflect on the following questions: In this situation, for this person, what is the best course of action? Is this person capable of assessing the situation and making a decision about it adequately herself? What are the preferences of the person? Who needs to be involved in the decision-making process? What will be the consequences of starting or withholding this treatment?

The blog post is here.

The paper is here.

A Contemporary Death: Death with Dignity and Autonomy

By Peggy Battin
TEDMED 2014
Originally published October 29, 2014

Philosopher and bioethicist Peggy Battin tells us the moving story of how and why her husband chose to die.  She addresses death, end of life issues, and individual choices in the process.  She shares her emotional reactions to the process.

Do research ethics need updating for the digital age?

By Michael W. Ross, PhD, MD, MPH
The Monitor on Psychology
October 2014, Vol 45, No. 9
Print version: page 64

Over a week in early January 2012, the news feeds of more than 600,000 Facebook users changed subtly: Without users' knowledge, researchers manipulated the feeds' emotional content to examine how Facebook friends' emotions affected one another.

The study on "massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks" (PNAS, June 17, 2014) generated significant debate in both public and scientific spheres. Much of this debate centered on ethical aspects of the study. In an editorial, even the journal's editor-in-chief voiced concern that the "collection of the data by Facebook may have involved practices that were not fully consistent with the principles of obtaining fully informed consent and allowing participants to opt out" (Verma, 2014).

There has been extensive and incisive debate about the ethical and scientific issues arising from the study.

The entire article is here.

Social media can cause problems for lawyers when it comes to ethics, professional responsibility

Bodies are trying to come up with guidelines for the legal profession when it comes to the use of social media

By Ed Silverstein
Inside Counsel
Originally published April 29, 2014

It is becoming increasingly confusing what lawyers, judges and courthouse employees can post on social media sites. For instance, can a judge “friend” someone who is an attorney on Facebook and then have the attorney appear before them in court?

Attorneys who post on sites like Facebook also have to worry about violating attorney-client confidentiality, disciplinary action, losing jobs, or engaging in the unauthorized or inadvertent practice of law, according to an article in the Touro Law Review. In addition, attorneys could “face sanctions for revealing misconduct or disparaging judges on social media sites,” the article adds.

The entire article is here.

The Use of Telepsychology in Clinical Practice: Benefits, Effectiveness, and Issues to Consider

By Nicole Godine and Jeffrey Barnett
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning
DOI: 10.4018/ijcbpl.2013100105

Abstract

The use of various technologies in the practice of psychology has increased greatly in recent years in concert with increases in the use of these technologies in the lives of most individuals. E-mail, text messaging, chat rooms, and the Internet have greatly changed how many individuals communicate and maintain relationships. The psychotherapy relationship is no exception. The scope and practice of telepsychology, the use of the Internet and other technologies in the provision of psychological services, is reviewed along with relevant research that supports their use in the treatment of a wide range of conditions and disorders. Clinical, ethical, and legal issues and challenges are addressed and recommendations for the effective and appropriate use of these technologies in psychological practice are provided.

Article Preview

Mental health services can be delivered by e-mail, real-time chat, telephones, videoconferencing, cell phones, and websites (Grohol, 2003; Smith & Allison, 1998; Stamm, 2003; VandenBos & Williams, 2000). Synchronous modalities of communication, in which participants communicate in real time, include online chat, telephones, cell phones, and videoconferencing. Videoconferencing is a “technological procedure that allows individuals to see and hear each other on a computer monitor or video screen in real time” (Germain, Marchand, Bouchard, Drouin, & Guay, 2009, p. 42). It is different from real-time chat, telephone conversations, and cell phone conversations in that videoconferencing allows users to view and speak to each other in real time, whereas chat, telephones, and cell phones only allow the users to speak to each other (not view each other) in real time. Asynchronous forms of communication, in which there is a delayed response time, include e-mail, websites (which might be simply informational, or might offer contact with a mental health professional through e-mail), and text messaging via cell phones.

The entire article is here, behind a paywall.

Vignette 30: The Purloined Patient

Dr. Eddy Kessler received a referral from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) to work therapeutically with Enoch Thompson, who suffers with symptoms of a panic disorder.  Dr. Kessler accepted the referral and started to work with Mr. Thompson on his symptoms of panic and anxiety, as these have interfered with Mr. Thompson’s ability to maintain employment.  Treatment started well, with Mr. Thompson developing better cognitive and behavioral skills to manage his anxiety after the initial eight sessions funded by OVR.  With Mr. Thompson’s consent, Dr. Kessler sent a letter to OVR requesting 10 more sessions over the next five months to reinforce the gains made in treatment.  Dr. Kessler viewed Mr. Thompson as moving toward stable employment with ongoing treatment.  As Mr. Thompson was improving, they agreed to meet in two weeks.

Upon his return two weeks later, Mr. Thompson informed Dr. Kessler that he was recently evaluated by his wife’s psychologist, Dr. Gillian Darmody.  As the patient described it, Mr. Thompson took his wife to her therapy session.  Dr. Darmody asked him to join the session.  The outcome of the session was that Dr. Darmody would be able to get Mr. Thompson on Social Security Disability as she “knows how to write psychological reports” in a way that almost guarantees a favorable disability decision.  She also gave him the name of an attorney to represent him.  He also felt positive about the experience as Dr. Darmody agreed to bill his health insurance for the disability evaluation.  He has a meeting scheduled with the attorney in two weeks.  Mr. Thompson also believes that the consultation with the attorney is free, and that the attorney is paid after disability benefits are awarded.

Dr. Kessler inquired as to why he agreed to the disability evaluation if OVR is trying to return him to work.  Mr. Thompson disclosed that the job market is tough, so he wanted a backup plan in case he gets better and cannot find work.  Mr. Thompson stated he disclosed their treatment relationship.  However, Dr. Darmody deemed their treatment relationship to be inconsequential to the disability evaluation.  The session then focused on Mr. Thompson’s ability to manage anxiety via psychological skills.  Dr. Kessler manages his anger sufficiently to get through the session and scheduled Mr. Thompson in two weeks.

After the session, Dr. Kessler phones you for a consultation.  Dr. Kessler is morally outraged at the other psychologist’s behavior, if true.

What are the possible legal and ethical issues involved in this case?

How would you respond to Dr. Kessler’s moral outrage?

How would you explain the issues to Mr. Thompson?

Are these reasons to terminate your treatment with Mr. Thompson?

If you would continue to work with Mr. Thompson would you change your goals?

How would you document this report from Mr. Thompson in your case notes?

Would you withdraw your request for more sessions from OVR?

What are Dr. Kessler’s options?

If you were Dr. Kessler, what would you do and why?

Same-Sex Marriage - A Liberty for All

Michael Boucai, Sexual Liberty and Same-Sex Marriage: An Argument from Bisexuality, 49 San Diego L. Rev. 415 (2012), available at The Williams Institute.

By Clifford Rosky
Family Law: JOTWELL
Originally posted March 27, 2013

For more than twenty years, the constitutionality of laws against same-sex marriage has remained a hot topic among scholars, lawyers, and judges in the United States.  This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will finally hear argument on the constitutionality of two such laws—the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act and an amendment to the California Constitution known as Proposition 8.

After so many years and so many challenges, it has become increasingly difficult to find arguments and angles on this topic that are genuinely novel.  In recent years, it often feels as if the question has been exhausted—as if both sides have already said what is worth saying, and we all are just repeating ourselves, pleading and praying for Justice Kennedy’s vote.

Yet in his recent article, Professor Michael Boucai (Buffalo) manages to stake out a powerful new claim for same-sex marriage—a claim based on homosexual liberty, rather than the equality of lesbian and gay people or the fundamentality of marriage itself.  In the article’s opening sentence, Boucai explains: “This Article proposes that same-sex marriage bans channel individuals, particularly bisexuals, into heterosexual relations and relationships, impermissibly burdening the sexual liberty interest protected under Lawrence v. Texas.”

As Boucai recognizes, his argument from sexual liberty “departs dramatically” from the paradigms of advocacy and scholarship on this subject.

The entire article is here.

Illinois cannot make pharmacists give 'morning after' pill: court

By Mary Wisniewski
Reuters
Originally published September 21, 2012

An Illinois appellate court Friday affirmed a lower court finding that the state cannot force pharmacies and pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives - also known as "morning after pills" - if they have religious objections.

(cut)

"We are dismayed that the court expressly refused to consider the interests of women who are seeking lawful prescription medication and essentially held that the religious practice of individuals trumps women's health care," said ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka. "We think the court could not be more wrong."

The entire story is here.

Stalking Patients at Hospitals

By Michele Goodwin
The Chronicle of Higher Education - Blogs
Originally posted on May 23, 2012

Next week, Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, will chair a field hearing on the effectiveness of federal laws to protect patients’ access to care and privacy.  The hearing comes on the heels of Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson‘s accusing Accretive Health–one of the nation’s largest debt-collection agencies–of excessive and possibly illegal tactics, including strong-arming patients in Minnesota hospitals.  A voluminous six part report can be found here.  However, the issue extends beyond Minnesota as Accretive has contracts with hospital systems throughout the nation.

According to the attorney general’s report, the Illinois-based collection agency hid in hospital waiting rooms and even stalked patients in convalescing rooms to collect payments before and after treatments.  Those desperate tactics are particularly troubling because they occur when patients are seeking emergency medical care.  The cases highlighted by Swanson’s office detail clandestine debt collection schemes that not only misrepresent hospital staff, but may have a deterrent effect on individuals seeking treatment.

The entire story is here.

Will Patient Safety Initiatives Harm Physicians?

By Brian S. Kern, Esquire
Medscape Today News
Originally published on March 12, 2012

Peer review, the patient safety method designed to identify ineffective, unethical, or impaired physicians, can help improve the delivery of medical care, provide risk-management lessons, and lead to improved policies and procedures. At the same time, some doctors and hospital administrators have expressed concern that peer review produces fodder for civil or criminal lawsuits against physicians and healthcare institutions.

The body of law on patient safety initiatives and their level of confidentiality has evolved considerably. Historically, case law, recognizing the importance of peer-review procedures -- and the need to keep them confidential -- has protected self-critical analysis and other forms of internal investigation.

For example, in Christy v. Salem (2004), a New Jersey appellate court addressed whether a hospital's peer-review committee report was discoverable in a medical malpractice case. In declining to "adopt the privilege of self-critical analysis as a full privilege," the court chose to rely on a "case-by-case balancing approach" and essentially held that facts contained within a report are subject to legal discovery, but "evaluative and deliberative materials" are not.

Shortly thereafter, the Garden State adopted the New Jersey Patient Safety Act (NJ PSA), which in large part codified Christy v. Salem. The measure was tested early when, during the discovery phase of a medical malpractice trial against an obstetrician, a plaintiff's attorney sought hospital reports related to patient safety. The defense objected, asserting that the information was privileged and thus legally protected against disclosure.

The entire story is here.

Massachusetts Appeals Court rules that judge was wrong to order mentally ill woman to have an abortion and to then be sterilized

By Peter Schworm
The Boston Globe

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today reversed a probate judge’s decision to order a schizophrenic woman to undergo an abortion and to then be sterilized, saying the woman had consistently expressed her opposition to the practice as a Catholic.

In October, the state Department of Mental Health filed a petition to have the woman’s parents named as guardians for the woman, who is only known as “Mary Moe,’’ so they could give consent for an abortion, according to the court.

Norfolk Probate and Family Court Judge Christina Harms, declared that the 32-year-old woman was not competent to make a decision about an abortion, citing “substantial delusional beliefs,” and concluded she would choose to abort her pregnancy if she were competent.

Earlier this month, Harms ordered that the woman’s parents be appointed as coguardians and that Moe could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed ... by ruse” into a hospital where she would be sedated and an abortion would then be performed, the ruling stated.

The judge also ordered the facility that performed the abortion to sterilize the woman “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.”

The Appeal Court’s decision, released today, reversed the sterilization order in unusually strong terms.

“No party requested this measure, none of the attendant procedural requirements has been met, and the judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air,” wrote Appeals Court Judge Andrew Grainger.

The entire story is here.

Psychologist found guilty of sexual relationship with patient

By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel

Published September 2, 2011

An Oak Creek psychologist was found guilty Friday of starting a sexual relationship with a longtime patient in 2005.

Jeffrey Adamczak, 48, faces up to 71/2 years in prison for sexual exploitation by a therapist at his sentencing Oct. 13. Jurors deliberated about two hours before reaching the verdict after a weeklong trial.

Adamczak was charged in August 2010. The victim, with whom he carried on a yearlong affair before she broke it off in 2006, reported Adamczak to authorities in March 2010 after she became convinced that he was again having sexual contact with patients.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet directed that the woman not be named in news reports.

A second former patient also testified that Adamczak had sexual contact with her in 2004, and two other former patients described what they considered inappropriate sexual comments from him during therapy. Adamczak flatly denied those allegations.

His attorney, Gerald Boyle, told jurors in closing arguments that jealousy drove the woman to destroy Adamczak, and said his client's testimony and office records showed the affair didn't start until after he had closed the woman's file, ending the therapist relationship.

The woman, a 40-year-old physical therapist, had been in near weekly counseling with Adamczak for about three years when he initiated sexual contact with her at a session in February 2005, after she told him she had filed for divorce from her husband.

Timing questioned

At trial, both parties testified about a memorable tryst at a Milwaukee hotel suite, replete with candles, special music and rose petals scattered near the whirlpool tub.

But when she was interviewed earlier by police, the woman said she couldn't recall the exact date, or the hotel where she and Adamczak had the experience they referred to as "Paris."

And that, his attorney argued to jurors Friday, was a big red flag on her credibility.

"If she can't remember "Paris,' " Boyle said, jurors shouldn't believe her testimony about exactly when she first had sex with Adamczak.

The timing of the first encounters was a key question for jurors. The woman testified it was in February 2005, just after she had filed for divorce, and that her therapist initiated three sexual episodes before finally telling her she could no longer be his patient "on paper."

Adamczak testified she came on to him, in late March 2005, several weeks after he had determined she no longer needed counseling and closed her file.

The entire story can be found here.