On second thought, I will add comment about one more similarity between my case and Al-Arian’s case: that of having been acquitted of almost everything.

(Notice: the following may not be interesting to a lot of people other than psychologists.)

The complete text of the appeal decision first addresses the issue of my having been convicted of refusing to release a client’s records when I felt doing so could be harmful to the client. A note especially to psychologists: you read that right. There is no typo in that sentence. I was convicted of unprofessional conduct for refusing to release a client’s records when I felt doing so could be harmful to the client.

Granted the Board was in a tight place. I had been charged both with not releasing records and also with releasing records. The green assistant AG charged me with opposite things to boost his chances of getting a case in his “Won” column. The Board had to convict me of one or the other, yes? Remember, they were at risk of being embarrassed. Heaven forbid they find fault with the charges instead. So they convicted me of failure to release records, but they hedged insofar as they did not specify any consequence or remediation related specifically to that charge. Wonders never cease.

My one disappointment with the appeal judge’s (aka reviewing officer’s) decision was his failure to understand the difference between what a clinician should do when deciding to release records that may be harmful, against deciding not to release records that may be harmful. In the former case, one should consult with others before taking an action that may be harmful. In the latter case, if one has decided not to take an action that may be harmful, there’s no amount of consultation with colleagues that would make a difference to that decision. First, the odds against a consulting colleague saying, “Go ahead and release them” is astronomical. Second, if a consulting colleague said “release them,” and I did and it resulted in harm to the client, the colleague’s recommendation against my own opinion opposing release would not have lessened my liability. Ergo, there was no point in consulting with a colleague about a decision to not take an action that might be harmful.

Imagine what any sort of professional practice would be like if we had to always consult with colleagues on every decision we made against doing harm.

So I was left with being convicted on that one charge of “unprofessional conduct,” of failing to release records when I thought doing so may be harmful. That one I really don’t mind so much. It’s more a badge of honor for me than anything else. And an embarrassment, ironically enough, for the Board. It’s right there in the public record that they did this, contrary to APA and HIPAA, not to mention reason and sanity.

Peace.

Deborah Alicen