Findings Of Fact Petitioner holds a doctorate in counseling psychology and is currently practicing in Cape Coral as a locally licensed counselor. He meets all Florida experience requirements for licensing as a psychologist, but Respondent contends that he lacks the specific doctoral course work required for licensure by exception under the above-cited statute and Rule 21U-11.05, F.A.C. Petitioner qualified several years ago to take the licensing examination, which he failed in part. Following repeal and repassage of the Psychological Services Law, Petitioner's application to take the examination was denied. However, Respondent has changed its position on this point and has again certified Petitioner as qualified to take the psychologist's licensing examination. Petitioner herein seeks licensing without examination, and presented testimony and evidence which established his credentials. He did not demonstrate that he has taken any doctoral courses which relate exclusively to the biological bases of behavior or the cognitive-affective bases of behavior. He has, however, taken courses and a seminar which included such subjects among others. The exclusive nature of this course work requirement is established by Respondent's interpretation of Rule 21U-11.05, F.A.C., which implements Section 490.013, Chapter 81-235, Laws of Florida.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying the application for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner made application to Respondent to obtain a license as a psychologist by exception pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 81- 235, Laws of Florida, as amended by Section 37 of Chapter 82-179, Laws of Florida, and Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that his doctoral degree did not meet the educational requirements of Subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. It was stipulated by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent that Petitioner's doctoral degree did not meet the specific course requirements of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner received his B.A. degree from Rutger's University, a master's degree in counselor education from Florida State University, and a Ph.D. in marriage and family counseling from Florida State University. Petitioner's doctoral dissertation concerned itself with one of the key aspects of Adlerian psychology called "social interest." This dissertation was of such professional significance as to result in an appearance of Petitioner for the purpose of presenting the paper to the American Society of Adlerian Psychologists. Petitioner's course of study for his doctoral degree focused primarily on Adlerian psychology. The total course work completed by the Petitioner exceeded the minimum requirements for his Ph.D. In addition to his educational training, the Petitioner has done individual counseling and psychotherapy for approximately eleven years. Within the general field of psychology there are a host of different subdivisions. One of these subdivisions is counseling psychology. Within counseling psychology there are different theories or methods relative to dealing with individuals, and one of these methods is the Adlerian method. It was this method which was the focus of the Petitioner's dissertation for his doctoral degree. Petitioner sought his licensure by exception by contending that he obtained a doctoral degree from an approved university in a program that is primarily psychological in nature. The Petitioner's application for licensure was denied on the basis that his course of study was not primarily psychological in nature because the program did not include at least one course in biological bases of behavior or cognitive-affective bases of behavior as required by subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Three other individuals, Dr. Kerr, Dr. Simpson, and Dr. Shreenan, applied for and were granted licensure as psychologists during the same period of time in which Petitioner applied and was denied licensure. Petitioner's educational qualifications were equal to or exceeded those of Drs. Kerr, Simpson, and Shreenan. Dr. Kerr, Dr. Simpson, and Dr. Shreenan were certified by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists and gained licensure as psychologists pursuant to Chapter 81-235 as amended by Section 37 of Chapter 82- 179, Laws of Florida, which mandated licensure of persons so certified. Petitioner did not apply for certification by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists. The evidence did not establish that Petitioner's failure to apply for such certification was in any part due to actions or inactions on the part of the Respondent. The specific course requirements of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code, were not applicable to those individuals gaining licensure through certification by the Florida Association of Practicing Psychologists. Rule 21U-11.05 was promulgated by the Board of Psychological Examiners in order to establish an objective method for evaluating the educational programs of those applying for licensure. The rule establishes the minimum qualifications for a program of study to be considered primarily psychological in nature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mallory E. Horne, Esquire Randall A. Holland, Esquire BORNE, RHODES, JAFFRY & Assistant Attorney General HORNE Administrative Law Suite 800, Barnett Bank Bldg. 1601-The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 490.009(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of psychology pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 490, Florida Statutes. Respondent, during all times material to these proceedings, was a licensed psychologist in the State of Florida. He continues to be licensed in the State of Florida. His license identification is PY 2079. He practices psychology in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent went to the Bahama Bay Club, a condominium located in Gulf Breeze, Florida, on July 19, 2000. In the vicinity of the swimming pool located on the condominium premises, he removed his penis from his trousers and began shaking it in the presence of two women who were in or near the pool. Respondent whistled at the two women who then observed him. One of the women was Beth Rico, who is an airline pilot. The other woman was Ms. Rico's 19-year-old niece who is a student at Louisiana Tech University. Ms. Rico yelled at Respondent who thereafter placed his penis in his trousers and retreated. Ms. Rico told Respondent to get off the property and subsequently pursued Respondent. By chance, Sergeant Stephen Neff of the Gulf Breeze, Florida, Police Department, was in the immediate area of Ms. Rico and Respondent. Ms. Rico told Sergeant Neff that Respondent had exposed himself to her niece and to herself. Sergeant Neff pursued Respondent off the premises of the Bahama Bay Club. Respondent dove into some azalea bushes. Sergeant Neff attempted to apprehend Respondent by grabbing him. Respondent attempted to extricate himself. The two eventually exited the azalea bushes into the parking lot of a shopping plaza. There was a continuing struggle which ended only after officers arrived from the Gulf Breeze Police Department subsequent to calls for help made by citizen bystanders. It is apparent that Respondent's motivation was to escape rather than harm Sergeant Neff. However, as a result of Respondent's efforts to resist arrest, Sergeant Neff received abrasions and cuts to his hands, knees, elbows, and feet. On December 20, 2000, during an appearance before the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County, Respondent was placed on probation for a period of one year subsequent to pleading guilty to the misdemeanor of battery and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence and after pleading nolo contendere to the misdemeanor of indecent exposure in a public place. Adjudication was withheld for the offense of battery and resisting a law enforcement officer without violence. He was adjudicated guilty of indecent exposure in a public place. Expert testimony Carolyn Stimel, Ph.D., is a psychologist in Tallahassee, Florida. She is board-certified in forensic psychology. She is an expert in the field of psychology and is an expert in treating sexual predators. Prior to testifying, she reviewed the Administrative Complaint, the response to the investigative complaint, and a copy of a psychological evaluation on Respondent prepared by Dr. Larry Neidigh completed on June 11, 2001. She also reviewed the investigative report prepared by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). She did not personally examine Respondent. Dr. Stimel noted that Dr. Neidigh diagnosed Respondent as being afflicted with exhibitionism. Exhibitionism is a subset of paraphilia and describes someone who derives sexual excitement or satisfaction from displaying their genitals to unsuspecting or unwilling observers. Dr. Stimel opined that exhibitionism may be treated but recidivism is high. There are some people who do not respond at all to treatment. About 40 percent of persons with one paraphilia, such as exhibitionism, are likely to have another, but different paraphilia. However, Dr. Stimel stated that there was no evidence of this in the case of Respondent. It is Dr. Stimel's opinion that a psychologist needs integrity, good judgment, and emotional stability in order to properly perform the duties of a psychologist. It is Dr. Stimel's opinion that Respondent is not mentally fit to practice psychology at this time. Dr. Stimel believes that someone having psychological, emotional, or sexual problems which affect their ability to work effectively with patients is not mentally fit to properly practice psychology. It is Dr. Stimel's opinion that there is a nexus between the practice of psychology and a conviction of indecent exposure and a diagnosis of paraphilia. The expert testimony of Dr. Stimel, taken as a whole, is credible. Larry Neidigh, Ph.D., of Orange Park, Florida, conducted a psychological evaluation of Respondent on June 6, 2001, and made a report dated June 11, 2001. Dr. Neidigh reviewed documents pertinent to the matter and administered a five-hour battery of psychological tests to Respondent. Dr. Neidigh's diagnostic impression was exhibitionism. He opined that there were no indications of any mental abnormality or psychopathology which would indicate that he is not competent to perform his duties as a psychologist. It is Dr. Neidigh's opinion that the conviction does not directly relate to the practice of his profession or his ability to practice his profession. The report of Dr. Neidigh is succinct. It is also helpful, but Dr. Neidigh did not appear at the hearing and all of the factual underpinnings which caused him to formulate his conclusions were not available. Additionally, there is a substantial question as to whether certain of the tests administered by Dr. Neidigh were helpful in understanding Respondent's situation. Accordingly, the information supplied by Dr. Neidigh is considered less persuasive than that provided by Dr. Stimel. James Burt Meyer, Ph.D., is a psychologist who also has a law degree. He has done post-doctorate work in two different areas of psychology. He practices forensic psychology, and he is a professor at Florida State University. He frequently conducts training workshops addressing ethical issues in psychology, and has worked in the area of assessing and treating juvenile sex offenders. He is an expert in psychology. Dr. Meyer did an extensive document review in the case of Respondent and conducted interviews of both the Respondent and his wife. He engaged in a very careful review of the Florida Psychological Services Act with specific reference to Section 490.009(2)(p), Florida Statutes, which addresses the issue of a psychologist's fitness to practice the profession. Dr. Meyer believes there are three areas which should be considered in Respondent's case. The first area addresses whether the offender admitted that he had committed a sexual offense and whether he accepted responsibility for that act. Dr. Meyer believes that acknowledging that one has a problem is an indication that rehabilitation is probable. He noted that Respondent acknowledged that he had exposed himself. The second area is whether Respondent expressed a desire to stop his behavior. Respondent expressed remorse for his behavior and said that he wished to make amends. He informed Dr. Meyer that he had written letters to the two women and the police officer expressing his regret. The third area is whether the offender expressed a desire for treatment. Dr. Meyer did not discuss what, if any, treatment Respondent sought nor is there any evidence in the record which indicated that Respondent sought treatment. In an effort to formulate an opinion as to whether the act in which Respondent engaged on July 19, 2000, was directly related to the practice of psychology, he also consulted the McGrath article, consulted his own library of psychology law and ethics, and reviewed the definition of serious crimes in the National Registry of Health Service Providers (National Registry). Upon a review of all of the foregoing material and after considering all of the other information available to him, Dr. Meyer concluded that Respondent's behavior did not rise to a level where a chronic abuse of power between patient and therapist might occur. He opined that there was no direct relation between Respondent's exhibitionism and his practice of psychology. Dr. Meyer further noted that indecent exposure was a misdemeanor and was not the type of crime that would cause a psychologist to be removed from the National Registry. While he opined that Respondent's behavior suggested a great lapse in moral consciousness, it did not extend to exhibiting a depraved mind. Dr. Meyer agreed with Dr. Stimel when she stated that the recidivism rate for exhibitionism ranges from zero to 70 percent. Dr. Meyer also opined that a person could compartmentalize his behaviors and stated that Respondent could compartmentalize his professional life and his personal life so that aberrant behavior in his personal life might not affect his performance in his professional life. Dr. Meyer further noted that exhibitionism is a crime usually committed by young men, that men over 40 rarely practiced exhibitionism, and that since Dr. Meyer is about 55 years of age, he is less likely to engage in that kind of behavior than are younger men. In discussing the McGrath article, it was pointed out that about 35 percent of incarcerated rapists and child molesters engaged in hands-off aberrant sexual behavior, like exhibitionism, prior to moving into hands-on offenses such as rape. Dr. Meyer stated that he did not believe that would be the case with Respondent. Dr. Meyer's testimony was informative; however, he stated that a key indicator of rehabilitation was seeking treatment, but there was no evidence that Respondent sought treatment subsequent to the events of July 19, 2000. Moreover, Dr. Meyer could not adequately address the propensity of certain exhibitionists to move on to more heinous sexual activities. As a result, Dr. Meyer's opinion that there is no direct relation between Respondent's exhibition and his practice of psychology, is rejected. Character witnesses Dr. Henry E. Roberts is Respondent's pastor at United Methodist Church. He knows Respondent and his wife. He stated that Respondent is an active church member, a man of integrity, and is respected in the community. Flurett Fontaine is Respondent's office manager and has been for six years. She has been in a position to observe him closely. She stated that Respondent is a Christian, an ethical, and moral man. She chose Respondent to counsel her son when her son was arrested. She would not work for anyone she could not trust. Robin Steed is a sign language interpreter for the deaf or hard of hearing for the Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation, and has known Respondent for 15 years. She works with him when he evaluates and counsels deaf or hard of hearing persons. She believes Respondent to be sincere, generous, and trustworthy. George Custred was a patient of Respondent before Respondent's arrest and continues to be a patient of Respondent. Mr. Custred stated that he had experienced serious emotional problems and that he would not be alive absent the professional help he received from Respondent. Bradford Guy is a vocational rehabilitation counselor and has been for 25 years. Mr. Guy said that Respondent was a dedicated and thorough psychologist. Kenneth Donnalley is a vocational rehabilitation counselor who has known Respondent for nine years both personally and professionally. Mr. Donnalley said that Respondent is an honest, caring person to whom he refers his more clinically fragile clients because of Respondent's understanding and because of the thoroughness of his evaluations. He referred his 19-year-old daughter to Respondent and would do so again, if necessary, despite his knowledge that Respondent had been arrested. Dr. Bill Spain is a chiropractor who has known Respondent for about 20 years. They both attend the same church and are members of a Wednesday morning bible class. He said that Respondent is a fine Christian. Bonnie Brown is Respondent's second wife. She is a middle school teacher and has known Respondent since 1985. She married him in 1991. She said they enjoyed an excellent marriage and stated that their relationship has grown stronger since Respondent's arrest.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Psychology enter a final order finding that Respondent committed a violation of Section 490.009(2)(c), Florida Statutes, by being convicted or having been found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the practice of his profession or the ability to practice his profession, and that his license be suspended for one year, or a lesser period of time should he demonstrate to the Board of Psychology that he is rehabilitated. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire 1203 Governors Square Boulevard Magnolia Centre, Suite 102 Tallahassee, Florida 32311-2960 Mary Denise O'Brien, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Psychology Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist on or about June 26, 1984 and Petitioner's application was considered by the Board of Psychological Examiners (Board). Petitioner's application for licensure was denied by the Board on the basis that Petitioner's doctoral program was not comparable to an American Psychological Association (APA) approved program in that the biological bases of behavior was not a requirement of Petitioner's doctoral program as required by Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code. The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code and essentially codified the criteria for APA approved program for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect an April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is provided below. In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 40.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: Complete the application form and remit the examination fee set by rule of the Board. Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard . of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. The doctoral program must be publicly identified as a psychology program, and must specify in pertinent institutional catalogs and brochures its intent to educate and train psychologists. The psychology program must stand as a recognizable, coherent organizational entity within the institution. There must be a clear authority and pri mary responsibility for the academic core and speciality preparation, whether or not the program involves multiple administrative lines. The doctoral program must be an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty. The program director must be a psy chologist. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a doctoral degree. The doctoral program must include super vised practicum and/or laboratory experiences appropriate to practice, teaching or research in psychology. The doctoral program shall require a minimum of: The equivalent of three full-time academic years of graduate study; Two academic years of the three shall be in full-time residence at the institution from which the doctoral degree is granted. The doctoral program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge and use of scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurements, and history and systems of psychology. Further, the program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge in the following subs tantive areas of psychology: Biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological, psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, psychopharmacology) Cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), Social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology, cultural-ethnic and group pro cesses, sex roles, organization and systems theory), and Individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differ ences, abnormal psychology, psychology of women, psychology of the handicapped). (Emphasis supplied.) Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code was adopted to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983). The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook) adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1980; sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and are listed below. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The program, wherever it may be administratively housed, must be clearly and publicly identified and labeled as a professional psychology program. A recognizable, coherent organizational entity must be responsible for the program. The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. The program must include supervised practicum, internship, field, or laboratory training appropriate to the practice of psychology. There must be an identifiable psychology faculty and a psychologist responsible for the program. The program must have an identifiable body of students who are matriculated in that pro gram for a degree. The institution must demonstrate its commitment to the program by appropriate financial support. APA recognizes that certain principles are basic to sound training in professional psychology and requires that these principles be adhered to in an APA approved doctoral program. These principles are found in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, and in pertinent part are provided below. It is the responsibility of the faculty to integrate practice with theory and research early in the program. Students should form an early identification with their profession. Faculty should be available to demonstrate and model the behaviors that students are expected to learn. A close working relationship between faculty and student is essential. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of knowledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. The program shall, further, require each student to demonstrate competence in each of the following substantive content areas: biological bases of behavior (e.g., physiological psychology, comparative psychology, neuropsychology, sensation, psychopharmacology. cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g., learning, memory, perception, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion), social bases of behavior (e.g., social psychology; cultural, ethnic, and group processes; sex roles; organizational and systems theory), and individual behavior (e.g., personality theory, human development, individual differences, abnormal psychology). (Emphasis supplied). The uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Perry was that competency in the area of biological bases of behavior is a fundamental requirement which a doctoral psychology program must require to properly train psychologists and the policy of the Board has been since its inception in 1981 that applicants for examination must have graduated from a program which required demonstration of competence in the foundation area of biological bases of behavior. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in the United States. There has been no standard criteria established for all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida. Dr. Perry testified that he had not reviewed all the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida but that it was his belief that those programs were comparable to APA approved doctoral psychology programs. Based on Dr. Perry's service with the Board, he testified that the Board is not concerned with whether the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities of Florida are comparable with APA approved doctoral psychology programs when the applicant has graduated from one of the state universities of Florida.
