Therapist Malpractice

[Shadowbunny]

[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]

I put Harold on Ignore, as his drivel was just too much to suffer through. And while I appreciate TM's attempts to educate Hal, I'm afraid it's just pearls before swine. Unfortunately, if those who actually know the law DON'T respond to Hal's inanity, posters could be misled by his declarations. Until/unless the mods ban him, I'm afraid that that we'll all just have to do the best we can to counteract his nonsense.

[cbg]

I am going to make one, and only one, attempt at this. If I mis-state it in my attempts at clarity, Tax or pg1067 are welcome to correct me.

YES. Once they are entered as evidence in some form of litigation, a doctor's gross income and billing records AT THAT TIME become public record.

UNTIL they are entered as evidence in some form of litigation, they are not. Not only are they not inherently public record, but privacy laws (see earlier reference to HIPAA) do not allow the billing records, at least, to be released to anyone without the patient's express written permission UNLESS they are determined to be evidence in some form of litigation and are entered into the court records as such.

[pg1067]

I am going to make one, and only one, attempt at this. If I mis-state it in my attempts at clarity, Tax or pg1067 are welcome to correct me.

YES. Once they are entered as evidence in some form of litigation, a doctor's gross income and billing records AT THAT TIME become public record.

It depends on the context in which they "are entered as evidence." It's also possible that information like that could be subject to a protective order that would prevent it from becoming public record.

UNTIL they are entered as evidence in some form of litigation, they are not. Not only are they not inherently public record, but privacy laws (see earlier reference to HIPAA) do not allow the billing records, at least, to be released to anyone without the patient's express written permission

There may be some applicable exceptions, but this is generally accurate. It's no different than any other business's income/billing records, except that a therapist's records have the additional protection of HIPAA and state laws in many states.

I put Harold on Ignore, as his drivel was just too much to suffer through.

Ditto. There are a few others I have on ignore, but none are as bad.

[cbg]

Thanks, pg1067

[Harold99]

I put Harold on Ignore, as his drivel was just too much to suffer through. And while I appreciate TM's attempts to educate Hal, I'm afraid it's just pearls before swine. Unfortunately, if those who actually know the law DON'T respond to Hal's inanity, posters could be misled by his declarations. Until/unless the mods ban him, I'm afraid that that we'll all just have to do the best we can to counteract his nonsense.

If a person got in legal trouble and his only source of advice came from the prosecutor, I would consider that person to be "misled." You guys would go along with that one-sided, screw-job advice because that is 90% of what you give here.

Ditto. There are a few others I have on ignore, but none are as bad.

You mean none have ever stuck around to call the spades a spade. They've all been effectively chased off...leaving a core group of vindictive, prosecutor wanna-bes.

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.

I don't think anyone has inferred that the therapist could be squeezed to "admit" anything. What the OP was asking (if you are able to read between lines) is if there was some way to get the therapist to talk, and I said there was by forcing her to open her books and/or show bank records. And to explain why the three months of therapy was given for free.

Who would be so stupid to think that only an admission could prove something. Or that a person can be forced to admit something. The majority of convictions and verdicts do not include an admission of fault, rather a connecting of dots.

[blandiya]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but judges can't force you to say anything. You may pay a price for it but no one can force you. If you were whipped with a rubber hose then perhaps you could get an admission but I don't think that would be very valuable. I'm sure that if I whipped you with a rubber hose I could make you say that you're a troll with a jaundiced viewpoint and understand that experience doesn't equal expertise but such an admission would, likewise, be useless despite what we all know.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but judges can't force you to say anything. You may pay a price for it but no one can force you. If you were whipped with a rubber hose then perhaps you could get an admission but I don't think that would be very valuable. I'm sure that if I whipped you with a rubber hose I could make you say that you're a troll with a jaundiced viewpoint and understand that experience doesn't equal expertise but such an admission would, likewise, be useless despite what we all know.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but judges can't force you to say anything. You may pay a price for it but no one can force you. If you were whipped with a rubber hose then perhaps you could get an admission but I don't think that would be very valuable. I'm sure that if I whipped you with a rubber hose I could make you say that you're a troll with a jaundiced viewpoint and understand that experience doesn't equal expertise but such an admission would, likewise, be useless despite what we all know.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but judges can't force you to say anything. You may pay a price for it but no one can force you. If you were whipped with a rubber hose then perhaps you could get an admission but I don't think that would be very valuable. I'm sure that if I whipped you with a rubber hose I could make you say that you're a troll with a jaundiced viewpoint and understand that experience doesn't equal expertise but such an admission would, likewise, be useless despite what we all know.



I'm not sure if you're aware of this but judges can't force you to say anything. You may pay a price for it but no one can force you. If you were whipped with a rubber hose then perhaps you could get an admission but I don't think that would be very valuable. I'm sure that if I whipped you with a rubber hose I could make you say that you're a troll with a jaundiced viewpoint and understand that experience doesn't equal expertise but such an admission would, likewise, be useless despite what we all know.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but judges can't force you to say anything. You may pay a price for it but no one can force you. If you were whipped with a rubber hose then perhaps you could get an admission but I don't think that would be very valuable. I'm sure that if I whipped you with a rubber hose I could make you say that you're a troll with a jaundiced viewpoint and understand that experience doesn't equal expertise but such an admission would, likewise, be useless despite what we all know. Tutuapp 9Apps ShowBox