ALJDEC

00A-19990010-BHE · Board of Behavioral Health Examiners · 2000-11-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

On November 16, 2000, a hearing was held to determine if grounds exist to take disciplinary action against the Respondent. Assistant Attorney General Mary DeLaat Williams appeared on behalf of the Arizona State Board of Behavioral Health Examiners (the “Board”). The Respondent (and her counsel) failed to appear for the hearing scheduled in this matter. Shortly after convening this hearing, Michael Hughes, the Respondent’s attorney, telephonically informed the Office of Administrative Hearings that the Respondent would not be appearing for the hearing in this matter. The hearing proceeded without the Respondent or her counsel. Evidence and testimony were presented. Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Decision are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Respondent is the holder of Certificate No. SW-1715I (the “Certificate”) for the Practice of Social Work in the State of Arizona. The Respondent was initially certified in January of 1993. The Respondent’s Certificate will expire on December 31, 2000.

2. Dr. Robert Wilderman, Ph.D. is the CEO of Community Counseling Centers, Inc. Dr. Wilderman is a licensed psychiatrist. Dr. Wilderman has been the CEO of Community Counseling Centers, Inc. for 15 years.

3. Dr. Wilderman testified that Community Counseling Centers, Inc. employed the Respondent as a therapist. Dr. Wilderman testified that the Respondent worked at the Community Counseling Centers, Inc.’s Show Low Outpatient Center. Dr. Wilderman testified that the Respondent stopped working for Community Counseling Centers, Inc. in March of 1999.

4. On or about May 13, 1999, Dr. Wilderman filed a Complaint with the Board. See Board’s Exhibit 1. Dr. Wilderman attached a letter (dated March 24, 1999) to the Complaint. Id. The letter was addressed to the Board. Id. Dr. Wilderman wrote the following: . . . [The Respondent] has notified the employer that she is involved

in a romantic relationship with a former client. While employed at this agency, [the Respondent] provided clinical services to this client, most recently on January 19, 1999. Id.

5. For purposes of confidentiality, the patient/client at issue in this matter shall be referred to as W.W. a.k.a. W.M. Dr. Wilderman testified that the Respondent counseled W.W. a.k.a. W.M. in 17 group sessions and 2 individual sessions while she was employed at Community Counseling Centers, Inc. See Board’s Exhibit 2. Dr. Wilderman testified that these group and individual sessions occurred from September 29, 1998 to February 18, 1999. Id. Dr. Wilderman testified that the Respondent also provided one Case Management service for W.W. a.k.a. W.M. Id.

6. Dr. Wilderman testified that he met with the Respondent and W.W. a.k.a. W.M. on March 18, 1999. See Board’s Exhibit 4, page 3. Dr. Wilderman testified that the Respondent disclosed that she was quitting Community Counseling Centers, Inc. and that she was planning to marry W.W. a.k.a. W.M. Dr. Wilderman testified that he informed the Respondent that it is a violation of ethical standards to have a relationship with a client or a former client. Dr. Wilderman testified that the Respondent disagreed.

7. Dr. Wilderman testified that the Respondent’s romantic relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. is a violation of ethical standards because it creates an inappropriate dual relationship between the therapist and the patient. Dr. Wilderman testified that a dual relationship is not accepted in the behavioral health professionals because it creates a potential conflict of interest. Dr. Wilderman testified that a dual relationship is dangerous because the therapist may exploit or harm the patient.

8. On or about June 22, 1999, the Board received a Response from the Respondent regarding Dr. Wilderman’s Complaint. See Department’s Exhibit 3. The Respondent wrote the following: . . . I adamantly deny the allegations of committing an act of unprofessional practice as defined by A.R.S. §32-3251(9). Id.

9. Richard Bessom practiced as a therapist at Community Counseling Centers, Inc. Mr. Bessom also provided counseling services to W.W. a.k.a. W.M. On or about March 18, 1999, W.W. a.k.a. W.M. filed a Petition for Injunction Against Harassment (the “Petition”) in Show Low Justice Court. See Board’s Exhibit 7. Mr. Bessom is listed as the Defendant on this Petition. Id. The Respondent is listed in this Petition as the “fiance” of W.W. a.k.a. W.M. Id.

10. On or about March 29, 1999, the Respondent filed a Petition for Injunction Against Harassment (“Respondent’s Petition”) in Show Low Justice Court. See Board’s Exhibit 7. Mr. Bessom is listed as the Defendant on the Respondent’s Petition. Id. W.W. a.k.a. W.M is listed in the Respondent’s Petition as the Respondent’s “fiance”. Id.

11. On or about March 19, 1999, the Respondent and W.W. a.k.a. W.M appeared at the Show Low Police Department to “file a report of stalking and threats.” See Board’s Exhibit 8. W.W. a.k.a. W.M. and the Respondent claimed that Mr. Bessom was stalking and harassing them. Id. W.W. a.k.a. W.M. is identified in the Show Low Police Department’s Crime Report as the Respondent’s “fiance”. The Crime Report also shows that W.W. a.k.a. W.M. and the Respondent were together at the AM/PM Mini-mart on March 14, 1999. Id.

12. On May 6, 1999, the Respondent and W.W. a.k.a. W.M. were married by a Justice of the Peace in Show Low, Arizona. See Board’s Exhibit 9 (Marriage License).

13. Patricia E. Reynolds is the Board’s Deputy Director and an Investigator. Ms. Reynolds testified that she was assigned to investigate the Complaint filed by Dr. Wilderman. Ms. Reynolds testified that she interviewed the Respondent on May 24, 2000. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent responded in writing to several questions regarding the allegations in Dr. Wilderman’s Complaint. See Board’s Exhibit 5 (Investigative Interview Form). Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent denied having a romantic relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. Id. at page 4. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent made this denial seven times during her interview.

14. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent stated that a therapist should never have a relationship with a client or former client. See Board’s Exhibit 5, at page 10. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent denied having a meeting with Dr. Wilderman and W.W. a.k.a. W.M. on March 18, 1999. Id. at page 12. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent promised to provide names of witnesses who could corroborate her story. However, Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent never provided the names of the witnesses.

15. Ms. Reynolds testified that she also interviewed Mr. Bessom. Ms. Reynolds testified that Mr. Bessom believed that the Respondent’s romantic relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. began while she was counseling W.W. a.k.a. W.M. at the Community Counseling Centers, Inc.

16. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent was “noticed” to appear before the Board’s Social Work Credentialing Committee (the “Committee”) on September 8, 2000. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent failed to appear for this meeting. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Committee recommended to the Board that the Respondent’s Certification be revoked.

17. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent and her attorney were “noticed” to appear before the Board on October 6, 2000. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent (and her attorney) failed to appear for the Board meeting. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Board adopted the Committee’s recommendation that the Respondent’s Certification be revoked.

18. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Board has adopted the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics to govern social workers in Arizona. Ms. Reynolds testified that the Respondent has violated Section 1.06 (Conflicts of Interest) and Section 1.09 (Sexual Relationships) of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics.

19. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds the testimony of Ms. Reynolds and Dr. Wilderman to be credible. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge further makes the following findings: A. The Respondent was employed as a therapist at the Community Counseling Centers, Inc. until March of 1999. B. The Respondent counseled W.W. a.k.a. W.M. in approximately 19 therapy sessions. The Respondent developed a therapist/patient relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. C. The Respondent developed a romantic relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. while she was counseling W.W. a.k.a. W.M. at the Community Counseling Centers, Inc. This romantic relationship continued after the Respondent terminated her employment with the Community Counseling Centers, Inc. D. The Respondent and W.W. a.k.a. W.M. met with Dr. Wilderman on March 18, 1999. The Respondent disclosed her intent to marry W.W. a.k.a. W.M. during this meeting. E. On May 6, 1999, the Respondent married W.W. a.k.a. W.M. F. On or about June 14, 1999, the Respondent lied in her Response submitted to the Board about her romantic relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. G. On May 24, 2000, the Respondent lied to Investigator Reynolds about her romantic relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues is by a preponderance of the evidence. Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). A "preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not." Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, §5 (1960). It "is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Black's Law Dictionary, 1182 (6th ed. 1990).

2. The Board has the authority to discipline the holder of a Certificate for the Practice of Social Work in Arizona. A.R.S. §32-3253(B); A.R.S. §32-3262(B); A.R.S. §32-3281. The Board has the authority to revoke the holder’s Certificate for “unprofessional practice”. A.R.S. §32-3262(B); A.R.S. §32-3281.

3. “Unprofessional practice” includes: . . . (f) Making use of statements of a character tending to deceive or mislead the public. . . . (h) Gross negligence in the practice of a behavioral health profession by a certified behavioral health professional. (i) Any conduct or practice which is contrary to recognized standards of ethics in the behavioral health profession or which constitutes a danger to the health, welfare or safety of a client. . . . (l) Violating any provision of this chapter or refusing or neglecting to comply with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter or any lawful order of the board or a credentialing committee.

A.R.S. §32-3251(9).

4. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Respondent has committed an act of “unprofessional practice” pursuant to A.R.S. §32-3251(9)(f). The Respondent made false statements regarding her relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. that were designed to mislead the Board. The Respondent made the following false statements to the Board: a. The Respondent lied about her relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. on her Response that was received by the Board on June 22, 1999; b. The Respondent lied about her relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. when she was interviewed by Investigator Reynolds on May 24, 2000.

5. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Respondent has committed an act of “unprofessional practice” pursuant to A.R.S. §32-3251(9)(h). The Respondent counseled W.W. a.k.a. W.M. in approximately 19 therapy sessions. The Respondent and W.W. a.k.a. W.M. developed a therapist/patient relationship. The Respondent was grossly negligent in allowing a romantic relationship to begin with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. This dual relationship created the risk of harm and exploitation to W.W. a.k.a. W.M.

6. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Respondent has committed an act of “unprofessional practice” pursuant to A.R.S. §32-3251(9)(i). The Respondent’s dual relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. is a violation of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, Section 1.06(a),(b) & (c) (Conflicts of Interest) and Section 1.09(a) & (c) (Sexual Relationships).

7. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Respondent has committed an act of “unprofessional practice” pursuant to A.R.S. §32-3251(9)(l). The Respondent entered into a romantic relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. while she was providing counseling services to W.W. a.k.a. W.M. This conduct violated the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, Section 1.06 (Conflicts of Interest) and Section 1.09 (Sexual Relationships). The Respondent also lied to the Board about her dual relationship with W.W. a.k.a. W.M. Accordingly, the Respondent has violated A.R.S. §32- 3251(9)(f),(h) & (i).

8. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that sufficient grounds exist to revoke the Respondent’s Certification for the Practice of Social Work in the State of Arizona. A.R.S. §32-3251(9); A.R.S. §32-3281.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Respondent’s Certification for the Practice of Social Work in the State of Arizona be REVOKED.

Done this day, November 20, 2000.

______________________________________ Casey J. Newcomb Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of November, 2000, to:

Debra Rinaudo Board of Behavioral Health Examiners ATTN: Amanda Hidalgo 1400 West Washington, Room 350 Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826