State board proposes discipline for University of Oregon psychologist over record release in rape case

The Associated Press
Originally published September 25, 2015

A state licensing board is proposing a $5,000 fine, a reprimand and ethics training for the head of the University of Oregon’s counseling office.

The proposed discipline, announced Friday, stems from allegations that Shelly Kerr released a student’s counseling records to the UO’s lawyers without the student’s permission. The student sought counseling after she said she was raped by three basketball players.

The rest of the article is here.

Indiana board issues complaint against psychologist Pamela Christy

Psychiatric Crime Database
Originally published August 30, 2012

Here are some excerpts:

On May 23, 2012, the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency State Psychology Board issued a complaint against psychologist Pamela Christy, Ph.D., citing conduct which indicates that she has become unfit to practice due to her failure to keep abreast of current professional theory or practice.

(cut)

Christy informed Patient A of this and also cited in a letter to the Board that she would only release the records with the daughters’ permission and that “Patient A believes that he can make that decision for his children merely because they are under the age of 18…. I see no such distinction in the law” and even if there were a such a provision, “Patient A is still not entitled to the information.
 

Christy however was wrong. Indiana Code § 16-39-2-9(b)(1) states that a noncustodial parent has equal access to the minor child’s mental health records as the custodial parent.

 

There entire story is here.

Psychologist ordered to turn over evaluation of Dunwoody murder suspect

By Andrew Cauthen
The Champion
Originally published 1/12/12

Hemy Neuman

The doctor who evaluated the mental state of Hemy Neuman, accused of the November 2010 killing of a Dunwoody man, has been ordered to turn over the records of the evaluation.

Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams on Jan. 11 ordered Dr. Peter Thomas to “transmit all records in his possession concerning his evaluation of [Neuman].”

The order states that “any records received by the Court…which do not contain privileged attorney-client communications will thereafter be turned over to the state and the defendant.”

Neuman has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges that he killed Russell Sneiderman, an entrepreneur who had just dropped his child at a daycare.

The rest of the story, and some interesting comments, are here.

More details of the crime and the defense are found here.

Ask the Ethics Committee: Releasing Third Party Reports

Dear Ethics Committee:

I have a question about the release of third party records.  I understood that we are NOT to release records from third parties that we have in our charts (e.g., from other medical providers).

A colleague recently told me that this has changed.  If 3rd-party information is in our charts, then the expectation is to release it when asked for records.

Can the committee offer some guidance on this?

Thank you.

Ethics Committee Response:

There is no absolute prohibition against sending records received from third parties in response to a signed patient release. However, this may not be a good practice.  In many cases, the psychologist cannot ensure that the third party records are the most recent or the most comprehensive set of records available.

For example, a psychologist receives a release of information from a patient that graduated from therapy about one year ago.  The release specifies that the psychologist send “all records.”  In file, there is a report from a physician in file that is now five years old. By sending the old report from the physician, the psychologist may be doing a disservice because the psychologist does not know if the patient has had more recent contact with the physician.  Additionally, the psychologist cannot be sure if the physician's report is now inaccurate or misleading.

Therefore, we suggest that it is preferable to have the patient get the information directly from the third party.

There are certain situations in which good clinical and ethical judgment may indicate a different course.  As stated above, there is no rule that prohibits a psychologist from sending out information generated from third parties, if legally compelled or clinically indicated.

For example, a psychologist receives a copy of a psychiatric evaluation in file from the outpatient clinic of a psychiatric hospital that had closed several years ago. The former patient is now working with a different psychiatrist.  An appropriately signed release asks for “all records” to be sent to the current treating psychiatrist.  In this situation, the patient’s current treatment may be enhanced with this longitudinal data.

In another situation, a former patient, who is applying for Social Security Disability, requests that “all records” be sent to a State Agency.  In file, there are old reports from several inpatient psychiatric interventions.  Instead of sending a seriously mentally ill, and perhaps disabled, patient on a long and potentially futile effort to find out what happened to those old records, the patient may benefit from releasing those older records directly to that State Agency so that the most accurate decision can be made.

In forensic cases, it is sometimes expected that psychologists will send information gained from third parties, especially if it was used as a basis to formulate their opinions.

There may be other situations where it is legally or clinically indicated to send out records from third parties that psychologists have in their charts. The examples provided are not meant to be exhaustive.

However, as noted above, it is usually better for patient records to come directly from the original source.

Thoughts and comments about this response are welcome.

Maryland State Board of Physicians v. Eist

Patient Privacy vs. Disciplining Doctors

By Jonathan E. Montgomery

Martindale.com

Originally published June 21, 2011

This January, Maryland's highest court ruled in Board of Physicians v. Eist, that health care practitioners must timely disclose patient medical records to Maryland's Board of Physicians pursuant to a Board subpoena, or face sanctions, even if the patient involved objects to the disclosure.

In this case, Dr. Eist, a psychiatrist, became the subject of a Board investigation after the estranged husband of one of his patients accused Dr. Eist of, among other things, overmedicating the patient. The Board demanded the patient's medical records, but Dr. Eist initially withheld the records when his patient refused to give consent to the disclosure. Dr. Eist believed that he should wait until the Board and his patient settled their privacy dispute.

The entire summary of the case can be found here.

The entire opinion can be read here.

One issue from this case stems from the psychiatrist’s choice of counsel.  Apparently, though a competent attorney, Dr. Eist’s lawyer did not seem to grasp fully how to proceed when dealing with Maryland's Board of Physicians.

One major benefit to being a PPA member is to subscribe to our Legal Consultation Plan.  For $150 per year, a member has access to three hours of time from an attorney who is also a psychologist and understands the workings of the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology.

UCLA hospitals to pay $865,500 for breaches of celebrities' privacy

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske

Los Angeles Times

Settlement with U.S. regulators also calls for UCLA to retrain staff and take steps to prevent future breaches. Some staff have already been fired for viewing the records of Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson and others.

UCLA Health System has agreed to pay $865,500 as part of a settlement with federal regulators announced Thursday after two celebrity patients alleged that hospital employees broke the law and reviewed their medical records without authorization.

Federal and hospital officials declined to identify the celebrities involved. The complaints cover 2005 to 2009, a time during which hospital employees were repeatedly caught and fired for peeping at the medical records of dozens of celebrities, including Britney Spears, Farrah Fawcett and then-California First Lady Maria Shriver.

The entire story can be found here.