Therapist Malpractice

[Taxing Matters]

And I said it is likely he can, by using the judge to force the court ordered therapist to provide the therapy schedule and payment records.

No Harold. You're not thinking this through. You're not a lawyer so I don't expect you to understand the details of litigation. So let me explain in some more detail. The OP asked if the therapist could be forced to ADMIT that he took money fro to not provide the services the OP believes the therapist should have provided. An admission is a statement from a person affirming that some fact is true. So an admission would be something like the therapist stating "Yes, I took money from your ex in exchange for not providing those services." That admission could then be used against the therapist. But there is no way to force the therapist to make any such admission. In litigation you can ask for the admission in requests for admission, as part of interrogatories, or in a deposition. Absent a good claim of a Fifth Amendment privilege (which would be available if what the therapist did was a crime) the therapist can be forced to provide an answer. So he answers — and says no, he never took money from the ex in exchange for not providing the services. That may be true or it may be lie. But either way, once he's answered the OP would be done. He cannot force the therapist to say that he did take the money. He could not successfully go to court, stamp his feet, demand the court force the therapist to make that admission. So if what the OP really wants is the therapist to be forced to give that admission he's going to be disappointed because there is no way to force the therapist to do that. He can ask the question and hope for the best, but that's it.

Of course in litigation the OP could in discovery seek evidence like bank records to try to prove that the therapist did what OP alleges. But those bank records are not admissions by the therapist. The bank records would be admissible evidence, but would not be an admission by the therapist. There is a significant difference there between the term admissible as it relates to getting evidence before the court and the term admission which relates to statements made by someone. While the words are similar, the context in which the terms are used matter significantly. If the OP can get enough good evidence to build a case that the therapist did what he claims the therapist did then that would of course be useful to his case. But constructing that case does not result in any admission by the therapist that he did it. You see this all the time — most cases that are won are done without ever getting an actual admission (confession) that the defendant did what he was alleged to have done. Instead the plaintiff in a civil case or prosecutor in a criminal case has to prove the case without that admission using whatever evidence they have gathered.

[Mark47n]

OK, change the word 'force' to furnish...grammar detective.

These are court documents, so why can't they be public record?

'Troll' to me are those that come here to gang up on OP's like you guys do every day. And I am now adding TM to the list.

Let's see if the OP even comes back after post #2 and #3. Yet those posts are not trollish to you? Give me a break!

I believe I was quite explicit and changing the wording doesn't alter anything. A judge cannot make someone " furnish" an admission of guilt, either. Words mean specific things.

No, we gang up on you because you're a dolt. You believe (as noted before) that your experience trumps others expertise though you have no credentials and have demonstrated , and stated explicitly that even if you read the letter of the law that it's without meaning...based on your experience. Alas, we are not here to discuss your experiences, we are here to answer questions. So far, I don't know that I've ever seen you answer an OP, you just harangue those that do. That is what makes you a troll.

Expert witnesses are considered experts by the court by dint of their credentials, not their income, not their billing but by their education, knowledge and experience in the field where expertise is claimed.

Your a tool. Not like an adjustable spanner but like, oh, a Ronco Pocket Fisherman.

[Taxing Matters]

These are court documents, so why can't they be public record?

What things are you referring to here that are court documents? If you mean records that were admitted as evidence in a trial and that are now part of the court file then those would be public records unless the court ordered them sealed. If you are referring to something else, please clarify what you are getting at.

'Troll' to me are those that come here to gang up on OP's like you guys do every day. And I am now adding TM to the list.

And how did I troll or gang up on the OP? I gave the OP an accurate answer to his question. He might not like that answer but whether he likes it or not doesn't change that it's accurate. Note that nowhere did I say that he has no way to achieve his goal. I don't even know what his goal is, which is why I asked him for that information. It's certainly a reasonable question to ask. After all, how can I help him reach his goal (if that's possible) if I don't even know what that goal is. All I did was answer the question that was asked: can he force the therapist to admit that the therapist took the money? As already explained, the answer to that is no. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't achieve whatever is goal (whatever that is) some other way.

BS! Mine were. I believe the Dr's gross annual income is even required evidence...if asked. But maybe you are being the grammar police to 'F' with me and change the subject to grammar.

Let's clarify a few things because I suspect that people here are referring to two different things. The doctor's billing records and his gross income are not public records in the sense that prior to any litigation no member of the general public can walk into any government office or check a government agency web site and get that information. If, however, those records are admitted as evidence at trial and become part of the court's record in the case then they would be public records at that point, unless the records were sealed. I think some people here are assuming you mean they are public records in the former sense, i.e. that every doctor's billing records and income is available to the public from some agency. But I get what you are saying — that they are public records in the latter sense, i.e. those once private records become public when they end up in a court file during litigation.

What I'm not following is why that matters in the context of this thread. How does that relate to what the OP asked?

If the therapist is an expert witness, yes, they can be required to disclose their billing records and annual income. I watched it happen in my case.

Two things to note here. First, if the OP were to sue the therapist (and it's not clear if that's what his goal is or what the basis of his claim would be) he would not be an expert witness in the case. He's the defendant. Second, the therapist's billing records and annual income would only be admissible if that information were actually relevant to the case at hand. I'm not seeing where the doctor's annual income would be at all relevant to anything with respect to the OP's situation, though certainly the therapists billing of the OP may be very relevant, depending on what the claim in case was.

But don't worry, TM will likely not have my back on this because he, IMO, is one of The EL Clique too.

In case you haven't noticed Harold I've disagreed with every member here from time to time, not just you. And evidently you also have not noticed the times that I have in fact supported something you've said. Indeed, I've done that in this very thread. My goal here is not to win over buddies among the members here. My goal is to provide OPs with accurate information in response to the questions they ask. And if that means disagreeing with any member here, so be it. I'm not looking for a pat on the back from you or anyone else here. Given your stated intense hatred of lawyers I certainly don't expect that you will have much good to say about me and indeed I'm not surprised that you try to knock me down every chance you get as a result. But that's not going to stop me from correcting you when you give people incorrect answers or when I disagree with your take on something. That said, I'm not out to get you and have tried as much as possible to be civil to you. I think you know I've been more civil to you than some others have been.

[Harold99]

If you talk to two attorneys that just went against each other at trial, you'd get two very different renditions of what took place, how the case was won, how it was lost, and who got reamed and why. You guys tend to think that there is only one thing that took place which is why I call you The Clique.

I know exactly what took place in my courtroom regarding many aspects of our legal system...and none of you can make me unlearn what I now know, especially since none of you have ever been there. So why should your opinions be revered? Because of mob-rule?

[hr for me]

"I know exactly what took place in my courtroom regarding many aspects of our legal system...and none of you can make me unlearn what I now know"


well I KNOW that the ice cream truck comes to MY neighborhood every afternoon from May-October at 4pm....

Therefore an ice cream truck must come to YOUR neighborhood every afternoon from May-October at 4pm.....how you liking that ice cream?

[Harold99]

What things are you referring to here that are court documents? If you mean records that were admitted as evidence in a trial and that are now part of the court file then those would be public records unless the court ordered them sealed. If you are referring to something else, please clarify what you are getting at.

And how did I troll or gang up on the OP? I gave the OP an accurate answer to his question. He might not like that answer but whether he likes it or not doesn't change that it's accurate. Note that nowhere did I say that he has no way to achieve his goal. I don't even know what his goal is, which is why I asked him for that information. It's certainly a reasonable question to ask. After all, how can I help him reach his goal (if that's possible) if I don't even know what that goal is. All I did was answer the question that was asked: can he force the therapist to admit that the therapist took the money? As already explained, the answer to that is no. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't achieve whatever is goal (whatever that is) some other way.

Let's clarify a few things because I suspect that people here are referring to two different things. The doctor's billing records and his gross income are not public records in the sense that prior to any litigation no member of the general public can walk into any government office or check a government agency web site and get that information. If, however, those records are admitted as evidence at trial and become part of the court's record in the case then they would be public records at that point, unless the records were sealed. I think some people here are assuming you mean they are public records in the former sense, i.e. that every doctor's billing records and income is available to the public from some agency. But I get what you are saying — that they are public records in the latter sense, i.e. those once private records become public when they end up in a court file during litigation.

What I'm not following is why that matters in the context of this thread. How does that relate to what the OP asked?

Two things to note here. First, if the OP were to sue the therapist (and it's not clear if that's what his goal is or what the basis of his claim would be) he would not be an expert witness in the case. He's the defendant. Second, the therapist's billing records and annual income would only be admissible if that information were actually relevant to the case at hand. I'm not seeing where the doctor's annual income would be at all relevant to anything with respect to the OP's situation, though certainly the therapists billing of the OP may be very relevant, depending on what the claim in case was.

In case you haven't noticed Harold I've disagreed with every member here from time to time, not just you. And evidently you also have not noticed the times that I have in fact supported something you've said. Indeed, I've done that in this very thread. My goal here is not to win over buddies among the members here. My goal is to provide OPs with accurate information in response to the questions they ask. And if that means disagreeing with any member here, so be it. I'm not looking for a pat on the back from you or anyone else here. Given your stated intense hatred of lawyers I certainly don't expect that you will have much good to say about me and indeed I'm not surprised that you try to knock me down every chance you get as a result. But that's not going to stop me from correcting you when you give people incorrect answers or when I disagree with your take on something. That said, I'm not out to get you and have tried as much as possible to be civil to you. I think you know I've been more civil to you than some others have been.

Was I hallucinating when I watched the defense attorney ask my expert witness on the stand what his gross annual income was, what percentage of his income came from being an expert witness and what he charged for being an expert witness for me?

If three years of my taxes and books were required to be handed over to the defense and all that income information was required of an expert witness to be disclosed in court, why wouldn't the therapist be in the same situation to furnish his/her financial records if asked by the OP or the Judge? Especially when the therapist claimed to do three months of therapy for free. So the suspicion of 'bags of cash' could easily be questioned at length in court under oath.

...And yes hr for me, if an ice cream truck is legally allowed to drive down one street, I will assume he is legally allowed to drive down the next street over. I didn't say a different truck had to carry the same ice cream bars or arrive at the same time each day.

[pg1067]

[sarcasm font]Come on guys. This pretty pathetic. Your pointless bickering with the troll has only bloated this thread to three pages. YOU CAN DO BETTER![sarcasm font]

[Harold99]

[sarcasm font]Come on guys. This pretty pathetic. Your pointless bickering with the troll has only bloated this thread to three pages. YOU CAN DO BETTER![sarcasm font]

You must be referring to TM's lengthy responses? But that cannot be because one Clique member cannot critique another here, right?

Or maybe I should respond like you do and ask a bunch of pointless questions like:
Who are "guys?"
What is "pathetic?"
What "pointless bickering?"
What "troll?"
What "bloated thread?"
What can be "done better?"

If you are not aware that the therapist in this thread can be questioned by the OP and the Judge, you shouldn't be posting here. But you probably don't even understand what the OP's concerns are, huh?

[PayrolGuy]

If you are not aware that the therapist in this thread can be questioned by the OP and the Judge, you shouldn't be posting here. But you probably don't even understand what the OP's concerns are, huh?

How is a judge going to see anything? There is no legal action taking place. No judge is involved.

[Harold99]

My question involves malpractice in the state of: TN

I hired a therapist to help me reconcile with my son who the mother had alienated against me and gave her my insurance information, for 3 month minimum court mandated counseling.

It turned out the alienating mother had paid the therapist to NOT insist on joint counseling, and all "counseling" was separate, so absolutely no progress was made, then after 3 months she dropped our case.

I found out that the therapist never charged my insurance, and she claimed all work was probono but I know she was paid off by the mother.

What is my legal recourse to get this therapist to admit she was paid off?

The OP made it clear that this case IS in the court system.