vs. ) CASE NO. 86-2489
WALTER H. CARY, JR., )
Respondent. )
Notice was provided, and on January 13, 1987, in Jacksonville, Florida, a formal hearing was held in this case. The hearing was conducted by the authority of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and the Hearing Officer was Charles C. Adams. This recommended order is being entered following the opportunity for the parties to present proposed recommended orders. Petitioner has availed itself of this opportunity. Respondent has declined. An appendix attached to this recommended order sets out an assessment of the Petitioner's recommended order, in terms of fact finding suggested by Petitioner's counsel.
For Petitioner: William M. Furlow, Esquire
For Respondent: Douglas C. Higginbotham, Esquire
The issues in this cause are as framed by an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. Through this document it is charged that the Respondent attempted to obtain a license from the State of Florida pertaining to the practice of psychology and that he did so by actions of bribery or fraud, or fraudulent representation. See Section 498.009(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, is charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of those persons licensed as mental health counselors in the State of Florida. This authority is in pursuit of Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 490, Florida Statutes.
Respondent, in all relevant time periods contemplated by this Administrative Complaint, was and is a licensed mental health counselor in the state of Florida. His license number is MH 0000294.
On September 22, 1982, Petitioner received the Respondent's application to become a psychologist through exception. In turn, this was followed by an application for licensure based upon examination as received by the Department on October 4, 1982. Through the application process and in the interest of obtaining a license to practice psychology in Florida, Respondent indicated that he had received a doctorate (Psy D) in clinical psychology from the University of England at Oxford. It was further indicated by the Respondent that this school from which he obtained his doctorate was accredited by the European Accreditation Society. Further, Respondent indicated that he had received the degree in January 1981.
One of the prerequisites for licensure in the State of Florida, as a psychologist, concerns the need to receive a doctorate in psychology from a psychology program which has been accredited by the American Psychological Association or, in the alternative, a degree which has been earned from an equivalent educational program. The University of England at Oxford not being an institution accredited by the American Psychological Association, it was necessary for the Respondent to demonstrate the equivalency of his academic achievement.
The mechanical format which the Petitioner utilized in determining the question of equivalency was a form referred to as Psychology Program Analysis Form. A copy of this form as submitted by the Respondent in pursuit of his licensure as a psychologist may be found in the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. This item was received by the Department of Professional Regulation on September 16, 1983. The instructions for this form indicate that Part II shall be completed by the dean of the department from which the applicant had been awarded the doctoral degree. It is further indicated that this form should be mailed directly to the Board of Psychological Examiners of the State of Florida. In other words, it is the dean of the school who is responsible for the completion of the second portion of the form and for its submission to the State of Florida, directly. Furthermore, it was intended that the second part of the form, having been completed by the educator, should be signed by that person. Although an individual affiliated with the University of England at Oxford, one Anthony George Asquith, did sign the form dated December 1, 1982, Respondent is the person who completed the substance of this information provided to the Petitioner in Part II. That being so, Respondent acted contrary to the instructions given by the licensing agency and defeated the purpose related to having independent program assessment and verification offered by the officials within the University of England at Oxford. More importantly, for reasons as discussed subsequently, Respondent submitted this information in furtherance of his fraudulent attempt to gain a license to practice psychology in Florida. Among other misleading comments set out in the second part of the Psychology Program Analysis Form is the claim that the program at the University of England at Oxford is ". . . organized in a graded sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program." This program was not organized. In fact, there was no program. Instead, the University of England at Oxford was an organization having as its purpose the provision of phony degrees for those persons who had money to spend in obtaining bogus academic credentials. The less than genuine nature of the education allegedly provided by the University of England at Oxford was a fact which Respondent could easily discern. Consequently, his claim that he had
received a doctorate from the University of England at Oxford, as an aid to getting a license to practice psychology in Florida, is patent fraud.
Respondent, in furtherance of this fraudulent attempt, also submitted a document referred to as a transcript of grades for courses taken while a student at the University of England at Oxford. A copy of this transcript may be found in the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 3. Respondent was not involved in the course work depicted as being achieved while pursuing his studies at the University of England at Oxford. In actuality, Respondent did not pursue any courses at the University of England at Oxford.
Respondent's involvement with the organization known as the University of England at Oxford began when he determined that he wished to obtain a doctorate degree in psychology without pursuing traditional course work. To this end, he wrote to the University of England at Oxford and received a catalog, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. Respondent provided that organization with an enrollment fee. He also provided them with what the Respondent describes as a doctoral thesis. This doctoral thesis was not defended before the faculty at the University of
England at Oxford. Indeed, the catalog for participation in the program offered by the University of England at Oxford did not require submission of a thesis to obtain a doctoral degree. All that was mandated was sufficient money to satisfy those persons within the University of England at Oxford that sufficient money had been paid to obtain the so-called doctorate degree. A copy of the alleged thesis may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 3 submitted into evidence.
Although Respondent attempts to defend his actions in submitting his application for licensure as a psychologist based upon his argument that in his initial activities with the University of England at Oxford he had no reason to believe that the organization was less than genuine, this explanation is not credited. The facts demonstrate that from the inception, Respondent should have realized that the University of England at Oxford was not a legitimate academic institution and his utilization of the claimed degree from that organization constituted ill-gotten gains which he parlayed into an attempt to defraud the State of Florida in pursuit of licensure and, ultimately, the public who might be subjected to his practice as a psychologist.
Dr. John Bear, an expert in assessing the bona fides related to non- traditional educational institutions, gave testimony at the final hearing. His familiarity with the University of England at Oxford goes so far as arriving at the door of the organization, only to find that the business being conducted there was that of a place where mail was received. In London, England, at the address given for the University of England at Oxford, he found a man seated behind a desk and when he asked of this person whether this location was the University of England at Oxford, the man replied, "We receive their mail here." There was no campus. There was no faculty. The facility was only a mail- receiving service address.
In assessing Petitioner's Exhibit 4, Dr. Bear did not find the catalog to depict a legitimate school. His opinion concerning the legitimacy of the University of England at Oxford is accepted when he describes the school as clearly not being legitimate. Some of the observations which he had which lead him to those conclusions, and which are accepted as factually correct, concern the lack of a telephone number, the fact that the organization calls itself the University of England at Oxford, when it is located in London and the university town of Oxford is some distance away, and the fact that the literature within the catalog indicates that it is not necessary to do anything to receive a
degree other than submit a resume. The lack of necessity to provide a thesis is an item which Dr. Bear feels that no legitimate doctoral program would allow for. Dr. Bear was struck by the fact that the only things necessary were submission of the resume and payment, and that the resume need only be brief and to the point. He indicates that the catalog points out that the person obtaining the so-called degree need not be concerned with meeting traditional standards of experience and that any resume or thesis provided would be favorably regarded. He points out that the fact that the catalog indicated that a 20 percent discount would be provided for those persons wishing to earn two or more degrees at once. This pertains to a 20 percent discount on the second degree and any degree thereafter. This, in Dr. Bear's thinking, is unheard of in legitimate education. The method of payment for the degree through money order, as opposed to checks, and the fact that the money orders would be made out to ISP is found to be irregular. Dr. Bear is struck by the fact that the catalog states that the degrees would be backdated to any year the applicant chooses, back to the year 1918. The year 1918 is the year indicated as being the founding year of the University of England at Oxford. Again, this backdating of a degree is unheard of in legitimate education, according to Dr.
Bear. He points out that the degree can be received within six weeks, which seems inordinately short. He points out that no faculty is listed within the catalog. When he attempted to obtain a list of faculty from the University of England at Oxford, he received another catalog. His subsequent investigation revealed that there was no faculty, as mentioned before. He points out the fact that a fifty dollar charge is made for the receipt of transcripts from the University of England at Oxford. He found this to be unusual in that no courses are taken or grades received, and yet a transcript can be provided upon the payment of fee. In response to a question by Petitioner's counsel, Dr. Bear believes that the University of England at Oxford is a "phony-degree mill." He believes this to be so, given that the institution awards degrees without reason for doing anything other than paying money. There are no educational standards and there is no education being provided. Finally, Dr. Bear feels that any reasonably intelligent person could have perceived that the University of England at Oxford was not a legitimate educational institution. This insight includes the Respondent, and it is found that Respondent recognized or should have recognized that the University of England at Oxford was not legitimate.
Other incidents which point out the scope of the fraud perpetrated by the Respondent in his attempt to gain licensure as a psychologist would include the submission to the Board of Psychology of the State of Florida a letter dated September 28, 1981, from Nelson Corcoran, the purported Dean of Students at the University of England at Oxford, directed to David A. Schriemer, who was a mental health program coordinator with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The correspondence, which the Respondent had knowledge of, indicates his attending classes at the University of England at Oxford, which he did not. The letter makes reference to the faculty at the University of England at Oxford, which Respondent had never met, nor had he met any students at the University of England at Oxford as the letter suggests.
In the course of the hearing, Respondent alludes to a letter from the World Education Services, Inc., dated August 26, 1981, Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This letter was obtained in Respondent's pursuit of an employment position which required doctoral level education. This correspondence was unrelated to the attempt at gaining licensure to practice psychology. The letter from World Education Services, Inc., indicates that the University of England at Oxford awards degrees equivalent to doctor's degrees in the United States, related to the field of psychology. The World Education Services, Inc., is an accrediting organization. If the Respondent was only
conversant with the remarks of World Education Services, Inc., in their August 26, 1981, letter, a stronger argument might be made in his favor, although that argument would not overcome the clear import found within the catalog of the University of England at Oxford pointing out the unacceptability of that alternative form of education. Nonetheless, it was made abundantly clear to the Respondent on November 3, 1981, in correspondence from an official within the World Education Services, Inc., that it retracted its comments on the legitimacy of the doctoral program at the University of England at Oxford. A copy of that correspondence of November 3, 1981, is found as Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. Again, this is correspondence related to Respondent's employment situation, not in pursuit of the attempt to gain licensure as a psychologists.
This latter correspondence from World Education Services, Inc., was never submitted in his attempts to gain employment at a doctoral level. This withholding of the information from his employer at that time, the State of Florida, Department of Corrections, was further evidence of the fact that the Respondent recognized the problems associated with the degree that he had obtained from the organization known as the University of England at Oxford. The November 3, 1981, correspondence clearly withdraws any statement of accreditation when it says that the doctor of psychology degree which the Respondent obtained in 1981 would not be considered in England or the United
States for employment or academic purposes and that Respondent had not completed education in England which was equivalent to a doctoral degree in the United States.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to Section 120.67(1), Florida Statutes.
The Respondent is charged with violating Section 490.009(2)(a), Florida Statutes. That section pertains to the right to discipline a Respondent who has attempted to obtain, or obtained, a license under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, by bribery or fraudulent representation or through an error of the Board or Department. Respondent is licensed as a mental health counselor pursuant to Chapter 490. He has attempted to obtain a license to practice psychology under the provisions of Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, and has done so through fraudulent misrepresentation as alleged in Section 490.009(2)(a), Florida Statutes. For this violation, he is subject to the discipline announced in Section 490.009.
Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, and given the seriousness of the offense, it is,
That a final order bet entered which revokes Respondent's license as a mental health counselor.
DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February 1987.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2489
All the factual proposals by the Petitioner have been utilized with the exception of those found at paragraph 2, in which the date is changed to reflect the correct date found in the materials related to Respondent's application for licensure as a psychologist.
William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional
Douglas C. Higginbotham, Esquire 817 North Main Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
