mentality does not serve

public interest, attorneys

say, after nine-year-old

Donald Crowe case is

finally settled

of nine years duration involving psychol-

ogist Donald Crowe, Ph.D. of Oakland,

CA and the California Board of

Psychology has finally come to an end.

Although Crowe was ecstatic when it

was over in late December, there were no

real winners. Crowe endured a nightmare

that cost him $500,000 in legal fees. For a

time, he and his wife, Nancy, lived in a

rickety sailboat in Oakland Harbor to

save rent. But in the end, a judge--for the

third time--rebuked the licensing agency

for overstepping its bounds. The board

was determined to revoke Crowe's

license but when the case ended, Crowe's

lawyers and the licensing board finally

negotiated a seemingly face-saving com-

promise which the board had heretofore

rejected--a short probation period.

But the case appears potentially to

have more profound implications. Two

prominent California lawyers with wide-

ranging experience working with med-

ical, psychology and other regulatory

board clients and issues as well as trial

work at the appellate court level have

stepped forward, insisting what happened

to Crowe could happen to anyone.

Both men, Attorneys Charles Bond

of Berkeley, and Robert Sullivan of

Sacramento, declared in a telephone inter-

view with The National Psychologist that

the grievances about the psychology

board will not change unless California

psychologists take strong positions by

speaking out as did members of the

California Medical Assn. when faced

with a similarly inflexible licensing

board.

The problem is, they say, that the

licensing board has a "law enforcement"

mentality. What's called for is a regulato-

ry board mentality, they stated.

Sullivan said the board is increasing-

ly acting as though it is a criminal justice

or law enforcement agency because the

investigators are sworn peace officers

who carry guns. Their mindset, Sullivan

declared, is not geared to getting at the

bottom of the problem to see if it can be

resolved but to do the  equivalent of mak-

ing an arrest.

Bond said the reason organized psy-

chology needs to assume more responsi-

bility is that the nature of the allegations

being made in these times are "sometimes

so unusual and unfounded that every psy.

chologist could say 'there but for the

grace go I'. Every psychologist faces this

threat when a licensing board views itself

as a law enforcement agency." He added

that individual psychologists lack the

power to withstarnd such a war of attri-

tion.

"I can't overemphasize the necessity.

of the psychology community coming

forward en masse to protest what's going

on," Sullivan declared. "It's contrary to

what most of them are now doing... the

are hiding. They are scared to death of

this board, and with good reason."

Less than a year ago, The National

Psychologist reported on a case involving

Susan Anderson, Ph.D., a psychologist ~

Chowchilla Women's Prison in

California. The extended controversy

dealt with Anderson having failed the oral,

licensing exam numerous times. The

ensuing concern was that the exam's fail-

ure rate was an unacceptably high 65%

that the brightest candidates were failing,

and that the licensing board was using

"gatekeeping" as a tactic to restrict the

number of psychologists able to enter the

marketplace.

Also, in a missive related to psycho-

ogists' purported fear of the California

licensing board, Lynn Steinberg, Ph.D.,

president of the Professional Advocacy

Network (PAN) late last year underscored

such sentiments to Michael Haley, Ph.D.,

executive director of the California

Psychological Assn. (CPA). Steinberg,

whose organization has been concerned

with due process issues and has opposed

both CPA and the licensing board for

years, charged CPA with "fence-sitting."

She wrote that "psychologists are

afraid of retaliation if they speak out, it

takes. someone outside the profession to

deliver the message."

Both Bond and Sullivan said there

was a presumption 20 years ago that only

"bad doctors" ended up before the licensing

ing board. "This presumption no longer

holds," Bond said. He believes that

today, more cases are pursued resulting

from someone's political agenda or "mis-

guided law enforcement mentality" trying

to make a case when none exists.

"Every psychologist in this country

should be thankful not only for the result

but also for Don Crowe being willing to

stick out what must have undeniably been

a living hell for eight years," said Bond

"What he did was in large part for a prin-

ciple and every psychologist should

rejoice in that."

Sullivan, a one-time assistant attor-

ney-general in California where be repre-

sented the state's Board of Medical

Examiners, became the first lawyer hired

by the California State Psychological

Assn. and served the organization for 10

years. During the past 15 years, his prac-

tice has concentrated mostly on represent-

ing healthcare licensees, with 90% being

physicians and some psychologists.

Sullivan said he appears before

licensing boards frequently, and has seen

them change beginning about 1988 when

"they became very much like law

enforcement or police agencies--very

punitive--they felt that the public was

demanding that... I don't know if that was

an accurate perception."

Bond has served as an appellate

lawyer for healthcare providers for about

25. years. He also helps healthcare practi-

tioners in setting up medical groups and

various other business/practice arrange-

ments.

Sullivan noted that the California

legislature passed a dramatic revision of

the state's medical practice act in 1989

which particularly affected changes

regarding disciplining physicians and also

affected psychologists. At that time, he

said, the California Medical Assn. either

lacked the political muscle or didn't fore-

see the effect of the new law which added

50 deputy, attorneys-general.

CMA eventually realized that an

increasing number of physicians were

"caught up in a dragnet that the govern-

ment was throwing out by approaching

the law as if the licensing board was now

a criminal law enforcement agency,'

Sullivan explained.

The result has been, he continued,

that CMA has become increasingly vocal

during the past four years, being particu-

larly outspoken in its opposition of the

board's enforcement program, quick to

point out when money is wasted, an.

when injustices are foisted on doctors

According to Sullivan, CMA has become

vigorous in their support of practitioners.

"California psychologists have no

yet reacted in a similar way," Sullivan

declared. "They are of a mindset that used

to plague the medical association, that

bad things would only happen to bad doc-

tors."

He said that "mental health practi-

tioners are particularly vulnerable

because they see people alone, and

increasingly are susceptible to false alle-

gations of sexual misconduct.

"The psychology profession, I think,

glorifies process over end-result; they

(psychologists in California) have to

stand up and make the decision that the

way this board is running is not in their

interest nor in the public 's interest." CE

    The case against Donald Crowe,
Ph.D. of Oakland, CA centered on a sexu-
al relationship with a former patient in
1988. The Superior Court of Alameda
County, CA had previously ruled twice in
Crowe's favor, and in its Dec. 19, 1997
ruling affirmed for the third time that the
licensing board had failed to consider an
alternative penalty to revocation of
Crowe's license. The court termed it "an
abuse of discretion."
    The court further wrote: "The
respondent's decision fails to adequately
address the issue of whether petitioner
(Crowe) could be rehabilitated; the record
is devoid of evidence of any other con-
duct by petitioner which would demon-
strate his unfitness to practice, despite his
having possessed a psychologist's license
since 1982 and having practiced mental
health care for 19 years; the record con-
tains significant mitigating evidence; and
the record contains an uncontradicted
psychological evaluation of  petitioner
which concludes that petitioner is not at
risk of repeating this behavioral and that
he is not a danger to the public or to his
clients."