ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

24F-2415-PSY · Board of Psychologist Examiners · 2024-07-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of

COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY SUSPENSION OF LICENSE NO. PSY-003948

NICOLE HUGGINS, PSY.D.

Respondent

No. 24F-2411-PSY

No. 24F-2415-PSY

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 17, 2024, with the record held open until July 1, 2024

APPEARANCES: The Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners was represented by Assistant Attorney General Jeanne M. Galvin. Respondent Nicole Huggins, Psy.D. did not appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Board Exhibits 1 through 14

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners (the Board) has the authority to regulate and control the licensing of psychologists in the State of Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2061 et seq. The Board also has the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions against the holders of licenses for unprofessional conduct under A.R.S. § 32-2081.

Respondent Nicole Huggins, was licensed as a psychologist in the State of Arizona in 2008.

Respondent also maintained a psychologist license in Hawaii, issued on October 10, 2023, and held a Temporary Authorization to Practice with PSYPACT issued May 1, 2023 – May 1, 2024.

On or about October 6, 2023, the Board received Complaint No. 24-11 against Respondent, filed by a representative of Respondent’s former employer, Bierman Autism Centers (Agency). According to the complaint, Respondent was terminated by Agency for multiple performance issues, including failure to complete an evaluation report and no-showing/late cancellations for scheduled appointments with clients.

On or about November 14, 2023, Respondent submitted a written response to Complaint No. 24-11. In the response, Respondent included a timeline of events and ultimately requested that the complaint be dismissed.

On or about November 3, 2023, the Board received Complaint No. 24-15 against Respondent, filed by her ex-husband (JM) a licensed psychologist in the State of Arizona. According to the complaint, Respondent engaged in criminal activity by allegedly unlawfully gaining access to JM’s email account. As of the date of the hearing, it did not appear that Respondent had been charged for this alleged conduct.

Respondent had been charged with two Class 1 misdemeanors relating to her alleged violation of an Order of Protection obtained by Complainant JM. These criminal charges were pending through Gilbert Municipal Court.

On or about December 29, 2023, Respondent submitted a written response to Complaint No. 24-15. In the response, Respondent asserted that JM was on a “personal and professional vendetta” against her. Respondent indicated that she was formally and voluntarily relinquishing her license. Respondent denied any guilt regarding the allegations against her, but because it was the best course of action for her and her “ongoing process of narcissistic abuse recovery.”

On or about February 14, 2024, Board staff emailed Respondent requesting that she supply an update regarding the status of the criminal case by February 20, 2024. Respondent did not reply to this email and did not supply the information.

On or about March 20, 2024, the Board’s Complaint Screening Committee (CSC) reviewed Complaint Nos. 24-11 and 24-15. Respondent did not appear despite being properly noticed of the meeting. After deliberation and by unanimous vote, the CSC approved a motion to forward both complaints to the Board for further review regarding potential acts of unprofessional conduct with a recommendation that Respondent be required to submit to a fitness for duty evaluation. The CSC directed Board staff to issue a Subpoena to Respondent for her appearance before the Board to provide testimony regarding the two complaints.

At its public meeting on May 3, 2024, the Board reviewed Complaint Nos. 24-11 and 24-15. Respondent failed to comply with the Subpoena issued on March 20, 2024 compelling her appearance at the meeting. The Board expressed concern that Respondent failed to cooperate with its investigations and failed to provide information to the Board when requested, failed to comply with a lawfully-issued Board subpoena to appear, and that the turmoil Respondent cited in her personal life may have interfered with her ability to safely practice as a psychologist. The Board also found that Respondent’s refusal to comply with a Board subpoena and to supply investigation-relevant information to the Board indicated that she may have been incapable of being regulated.

After deliberation, by unanimous vote, the Board approved a motion to accept the CSC’s recommendation to issue an Interim Order for Fitness for Duty Evaluation (Interim Order) requiring Respondent to submit to a fitness for duty evaluation with a Board-approved provider. The evaluation was required to assess Respondent’s fitness for duty and her ability to safely and competently practice psychology and address any other concerns within their report. The Interim Order stated that “[w]ithin seven (7) calendar days of the effective date of Interim Order, Respondent shall schedule an appointment with one of the Board-approved providers . . . for an evaluation.” The Interim Order also stated that “[w]ithin three (3) calendar days of scheduling of the evaluation, Respondent shall notify the Board in writing of the name of the evaluator and the date/time of the evaluation.”

The Interim Order further stated as follows:

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ONE OR MORE OF THESE TERMS, INCLUDING FAILING TO TIMELY SCHEDULE THE APPOINTMENT, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY THE BOARD OF THE NAME OF THE EVALUATOR AND DATE/TIME OF THE [EVALUATION] OR FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR OR COMPLETE THE AVALUATION ABSENT EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, SHALL BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF A BOARD ORDER AND SHALL RESULT IN THE SUMMARY SUSPENSION OF RESPONDENT’S PSYCHOLOGIST LICENSE. THE BOARD FOUND THAT SUCH A VIOLATION WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE PUBLIC’S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND WOULD REQUIRE EMERGENCY ACTION.

The due date for Respondent to comply with the appointment notification requirement cited above was May 15, 2024. In violation of the Interim Order, Respondent failed to communicate any information to the Board on or before May 15, 2024 to demonstrate having met any of the requirements.

On or about May 17, 2024, the Board issued Interim Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Summary Suspension of License (Summary Suspension) based on Respondent’s failure to comply with the Interim Order.

The Board referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

The Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing, setting a hearing at 8:30 a.m. on June 17, 2024. The Board mailed copies of the Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing to Respondent at her address and email addresses of record.

Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear personally or through an attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend her license.

In the Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing, the Board alleged that Respondent committed unprofessional conduct as defined by A.R.S. § 32-2061(16)(aa) and A.R.S. § 32-2061(16)(bb).

A hearing was held on June 17, 2024. The Board submitted 14 exhibits and presented the testimony of Jennifer Michaelsen, Deputy Director.

Ms. Michaelsen testified as to the Board’s efforts to communicate with Respondent regarding this matter. Ms. Michaelsen noted that at different points, Respondent indicated she wished to voluntarily surrender license, but she failed to complete the steps necessary to do so. Ms. Michaelsen noted Respondent’s failure to comply with the Board’s requirements evidenced her inability to be regulated.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Board’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-2061 et seq.

The Board bears the burden of proof and must establish cause to penalize Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than 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.”

The Board established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct as alleged in the Complaint and Notice of Public Hearing. As such, the Board established cause to impose a disciplinary sanction against Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-2081(N).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Board affirm its order summarily suspending Respondent Nicole Huggins License No. PSY-003948.

It is further recommended that the Board revoke Respondent Nicole Huggins License No. PSY-003948.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, July 22, 2024.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Jennifer Michaelsen, Deputy Director

Board of Psychologist Examiners

Nicole Huggins, Psy.D.

[email redacted]

Jeanne M. Galvin

Office of the Attorney General

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff