NationStates Jolt Archive

last time brittney spears was in the hospital, dr phil decided that HE was the man to go in and help her out.

oops. he doesnt have a license to practice in california.



State of California Investigating Dr. Phil
Jan. 18, 2008, 1:16 PM EST
Zap2it.com

A complaint has been filed against Dr. Phil with the California Board of Psychology.

The complaint reportedly accuses Dr. Phil McGraw of practicing without a license when he visited Britney Spears at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after her meltdown earlier this month, according to TMZ.com.

Dr. Phil is also accused of violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The complaint alleges Dr. Phil practiced clinical psychology without a license and further violated doctor-patient privilege by discussing the pop star's case with the media.

Dr. Phil has never been licensed to practice in California, and he is no longer licensed in his home state of Texas.

McGraw failed to complete the conditions imposed as disciplinary sanctions by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989.

At that time a former therapy client had filed a complaint against him, claiming their relationship was inappropriate.

McGraw later admitted giving her a job but denied touching her.

Soon after he was officially reprimanded, McGraw closed his private practice.



i guess he forgot that he isnt god's gift to the psychological world.

last time brittney spears was in the hospital, dr phil decided that HE was the man to go in and help her out.

oops. he doesnt have a license to practice in california.



i guess he forgot that he isnt god's gift to the psychological world.

He's nothing but a TV personality anyway, with exactly that level of depth. He's Maury Povich with an endearing [sic] accent.

last time brittney spears was in the hospital, dr phil decided that HE was the man to go in and help her out.

oops. he doesnt have a license to practice in california.



i guess he forgot that he isnt god's gift to the psychological world.

it depends.

Did he use his "posistion" to gain access to BS's records without her and/or her family's consent? if no then he didn't violate HIPPA

Did he prescribe any medication or treatment in a position of "her physician/psychologist"? if not, then he can argue that he only gave his advice to her and her family. (I know he gave his opinion)

Did he recieve compensation for his "advice"? if not, then he's not guilty

and the interviews I've seen where he's asked about BS's condition, he replied "I cannot comment on that." so as far as I know, there is no D-P Violation (man the abbreviations just seem to 'work' don't they?)

now here's something...
The complaint alleges Dr. Phil practiced clinical psychology without a license and further violated doctor-patient privilege by discussing the pop star's case with the media.
If he's not a practicing Doctor, then there shouldn't be a "Doctor-Patient" privilege between the two UNLESS she was his patient before he lost his licence.

I beleive in one interview he did say that the family asked him to talk to their daughter and at the hospital, he was treated like a visitor and not a licenced psychologist (I.E. the facility called the family to confirm he was able to see BS.)

Haw Haw! (http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2008-01-13_1237966695183572/tv/simpsons/nelson/haha.wav)

He doesn't need a medical license. He has Oprah's Blessing.

Oprah > Law > Man.

He doesn't need a medical license. He has Oprah's Blessing.

Oprah > Law & Order> 2 & 1/2 Men.

Fixed

Edit: fixed my fix.

So what if he doesn't have a crackpot license? Doesn't change anything.

it depends.

Did he use his "posistion" to gain access to BS's records without her and/or her family's consent?He couldn't do that anyway, even if he were licensed. My father is a licensed, practicing psychologist. That doesn't mean he can just go into any hospital and demand patient records.

Did he prescribe any medication or treatment in a position of "her physician/psychologist"? if not, then he can argue that he only gave his advice to her and her family. (I know he gave his opinion)Yeah, but here is where it gets muddy. A psychologist's "advice" may constitute psychological treatment. It's all about how/why he gave that advice. Is he a friend of the family giving friendly advice? Or is he portraying himself as a psychological "expert" giving "professional" opinions? If the latter, it's illegal to do so without a license.

Since he does not seem to know the family well, all evidence points to his violating the law. He shows up claiming to offer psychological help, as an expert. He needs a license to do that, no two ways about it.

Did he recieve compensation for his "advice"? if not, then he's not guilty.Not true. Psychologists frequently offer pro bono treatment, and under such a circumstance they are still held to every standard of the profession and the law. The question isn't whether he was paid for treatment, the question is whether what he offered was treatment.

Click Stand;13381573']Fixed

3 1/2 men or 2 1/2 men.

I'm sure Dateline and Court TV needs to be in that equation somewhere... :p

3 1/2 men or 2 1/2 men.

I'm sure Dateline and Court TV needs to be in that equation somewhere... :p

2 & 1/2 men, I don't know what I was thinking with the three there.

I put dateline above 2 & 1/2 men, but then again I despise Charlie Sheen.

He couldn't do that anyway, even if he were licensed. My father is a licensed, practicing psychologist. That doesn't mean he can just go into any hospital and demand patient records.

Yeah, but here is where it gets muddy. A psychologist's "advice" may constitute psychological treatment. It's all about how/why he gave that advice. Is he a friend of the family giving friendly advice? Or is he portraying himself as a psychological "expert" giving "professional" opinions? If the latter, it's illegal to do so without a license.

Since he does not seem to know the family well, all evidence points to his violating the law. He shows up claiming to offer psychological help, as an expert. He needs a license to do that, no two ways about it.

Not true. Psychologists frequently offer pro bono treatment, and under such a circumstance they are still held to every standard of the profession and the law. The question isn't whether he was paid for treatment, the question is whether what he offered was treatment.

All shrinks can offer is advice, under than definition every time they give some sap a shoulder to cry on they're giving treatment.

All shrinks can offer is advice, under than definition every time they give some sap a shoulder to cry on they're giving treatment.

That is not true at all. What matters is whether that therapist does so in a personal, or professional capacity. How to arrange that is simple "telling you this as a friend, not as a therapist...." does a fairly good job of absolving one of professional responsibility in that regard.

Almost every lawyer, doctor, pretty much anyone whose profession has a complex ethical system should have a firm handle on how those ethical systems work. Speaking personally, if anyone asks for any legal advice, I either decline, or tell them that my advice is as a friend, not as an attorney.

All shrinks can offer is advice, under than definition every time they give some sap a shoulder to cry on they're giving treatment.No, only if the sap wants to cry on their shoulder because they advertise psychological expertise.

He couldn't do that anyway, even if he were licensed. My father is a licensed, practicing psychologist. That doesn't mean he can just go into any hospital and demand patient records. as long as the hospital didn't give him the records, then there is no violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. and if the Hospital did, then the fault is on the hospital.

Yeah, but here is where it gets muddy. A psychologist's "advice" may constitute psychological treatment. It's all about how/why he gave that advice. Is he a friend of the family giving friendly advice? Or is he portraying himself as a psychological "expert" giving "professional" opinions? If the latter, it's illegal to do so without a license. exactly. as Neo Art said, if he's giving advice as a "Friend" and not as a "Physician" then he's ok.

if he prescribed a form of treatment, say observation or being admitted, then that would be him practicing without a licence. but if all he did was say "As a friend, I would have your daughter admitted and gain professional help." then no.

Since he does not seem to know the family well, all evidence points to his violating the law. He shows up claiming to offer psychological help, as an expert. He needs a license to do that, no two ways about it. In one interview he gave to Entertainment tonight he said her family asked him to go and talk to BS. so he went to the hospital and ask if he could visit Brit not as psychologist, but as a visitor (hence why they had to confirm he had permission from the family before being allowed in)

Not true. Psychologists frequently offer pro bono treatment, and under such a circumstance they are still held to every standard of the profession and the law. The question isn't whether he was paid for treatment, the question is whether what he offered was treatment. as an UNLICENCED Psychologist, all he can do is offer advice in a non-professional way. thus any advice he offers will be "pro-bono" since he cannot charge them for advice. if he did then he would be in violation of practicing without his licence. thus the question, was he paid for his advice to BS.

as long as the hospital didn't give him the records, then there is no violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. and if the Hospital did, then the fault is on the hospital.It's still illegal to offer services as a psychologist without a license. The records are a separate issue.

as Neo Art said, if he's giving advice as a "Friend" and not as a "Physician" then he's ok.Right, but the legal issue is NOT as simple as saying after-the-fact, "Oh yeah, just as a friend," nor even as simple as registering with the hospital as a "guest" rather than as a physician or psychologist.

The question comes down to whether he presented himself to the family as an expert qualified to offer psychological advice, whether whatever advice he offered was twinged with a note of officialdom.

if he prescribed a form of treatment, say observation or being admitted, then that would be him practicing without a licence. but if all he did was say "As a friend, I would have your daughter admitted and gain professional help." then no.That's the general idea, but the legal and ethical issues run a fair bit deeper.

Why did her family call him? Why did he agree to come?

In one interview he gave to Entertainment tonight he said her family asked him to go and talk to BS. so he went to the hospital and ask if he could visit Brit not as psychologist, but as a visitor (hence why they had to confirm he had permission from the family before being allowed in)Yes. And this may be enough to absolve him legally. Maybe. But it's certainly not the end of the story.

as an UNLICENCED Psychologist, all he can do is offer advice in a non-professional way.Legally, yes. But that begs the question. Was he in compliance with the law? Was his advice offered in a strictly non-professional way? Or was he there claiming to be an expert?

Perhaps the following anecdote will help to clarify the issues involved...

My father is licensed to practice psychology in Pennsylvania. While at a party in New York State, a friend of his asked him if he would "talk to" another friend (whom my father did not know) about some problems he was having.

My dad refused on the grounds that it would violate the law because he is not licensed in the state. His friend's friend was interested in talking to him and even went so far as to suggest, "I'm just looking for some friendly advice." But Dad pointed out that they didn't know each other, and he said, "You want to talk to me because I'm a psychologist, because you think I know what I'm talking about better than any of your friends. It would be illegal for me to give you what you want."

That's what Phil should have done. He should have said, "Look, I don't know you. I'm honored that you respect my opinion and you enjoy my work in entertainment, but to offer my professional advice would violate the law."

i guess he forgot that he isnt god's gift to the psychological world.

He's not?

Oh right, now I remember, I can't stand him and think that he is a big quack who shouldn't have a license of any kind... now I remember....

:)

Perhaps the following anecdote will help to clarify the issues involved...

My father is licensed to practice psychology in Pennsylvania. While at a party in New York State, a friend of his asked him if he would "talk to" another friend (whom my father did not know) about some problems he was having.

My dad refused on the grounds that it would violate the law because he is not licensed in the state. His friend's friend was interested in talking to him and even went so far as to suggest, "I'm just looking for some friendly advice." But Dad pointed out that they didn't know each other, and he said, "You want to talk to me because I'm a psychologist, because you think I know what I'm talking about better than any of your friends. It would be illegal for me to give you what you want."

That's what Phil should have done. He should have said, "Look, I don't know you. I'm honored that you respect my opinion and you enjoy my work in entertainment, but to offer my professional advice would violate the law."

Yeah but he's an idiot... so thats what he gets.

Perhaps the following anecdote will help to clarify the issues involved...

My father is licensed to practice psychology in Pennsylvania. While at a party in New York State, a friend of his asked him if he would "talk to" another friend (whom my father did not know) about some problems he was having.

My dad refused on the grounds that it would violate the law because he is not licensed in the state. His friend's friend was interested in talking to him and even went so far as to suggest, "I'm just looking for some friendly advice." But Dad pointed out that they didn't know each other, and he said, "You want to talk to me because I'm a psychologist, because you think I know what I'm talking about better than any of your friends. It would be illegal for me to give you what you want."

That's what Phil should have done. He should have said, "Look, I don't know you. I'm honored that you respect my opinion and you enjoy my work in entertainment, but to offer my professional advice would violate the law."

Wouldn't that only be illegal if he asked money for it? It seems somewhat stupid that someone with a lot of experience in talking couldn't use that experience outside certain area's.
Maybe someone who does know a lot about the law could help.

Wouldn't that only be illegal if he asked money for it?

No, that's the whole point. It's not whether he got paid, it's whether he represented himself as a professional. I can take a case pro bono but it's still illegal to act as an attorney, paid or unpaid, if I'm not allowed to practice as an attorney in that state.

No, that's the whole point. It's not whether he got paid, it's whether he represented himself as a professional. I can take a case pro bono but it's still illegal to act as an attorney, paid or unpaid, if I'm not allowed to practice as an attorney in that state.

But as you say, if he didn't represent himself as a professional, and just as someone who knows a lot about talking it wouldn't have been illegal, just like it isn't illegal for you to give us some insight in the law (very fast btw)

It's still illegal to offer services as a psychologist without a license. The records are a separate issue. the records are part of the problem if "they" are trying to show HIPAA violations.

and can you show where he 'OFFERED' his services or was asked by the parents to 'talk to their daughter'.

Right, but the legal issue is NOT as simple as saying after-the-fact, "Oh yeah, just as a friend," nor even as simple as registering with the hospital as a "guest" rather than as a physician or psychologist. and they have to prove that he gave professional advice as apposed as personal advice.

The question comes down to whether he presented himself to the family as an expert qualified to offer psychological advice, whether whatever advice he offered was twinged with a note of officialdom. how can one show that advice was twinged with a note of officaldom?
and he is a qualifed expert. he just cannot legally practice professionally as a psychologist.

Why did her family call him?gotta ask the family.
Why did he agree to come? gotta ask him.

Yes. And this may be enough to absolve him legally. Maybe. But it's certainly not the end of the story. yep.

Legally, yes. But that begs the question. Was he in compliance with the law? Was his advice offered in a strictly non-professional way? Or was he there claiming to be an expert?
He is an expert, degree and all. However, without a licence, he cannot have a professional practice.

what the investigation has to show is if he gave professional advice and wether or not BS was his 'patient' in which then the Doctor Patient confidentiality can be examined.

however, if he was there as a friend a.k.a non-practicing, then the question is does Doctor-patient confidentiality extend since BS isn't technically his patient?

I believe this comes down to a matter of legal definitions. The line between friend and patient comes when the professional offers some manner of treatment. But what constitutes treatment? If he did a full analytical number and gave her extensive coaching, for his line of work I would personally consider that treatment. And why send Dr. Phil if that wasn't what was meant to happen?

Practicing I would consider treating patients. Even if you don't announce yourself officially as a business, he's still plying his trade. The only reason one would call Dr. Phil in to talk to a clearly disturbed person would be because he is a 'renowned' psychologist. I don't know if he could go there just as a friend. That's like kicking someone and saying that you were just swinging your leg in their direction, but it wasn't a kick. Psychologist + BS having a long talk, the outcome seems obvious. It is not a huge leap to assume they called him because of his profession. He can't advise as anything but a doctor. He can't remove his hat and declare that rank isn't an issue. If a doctor gives advice in his field, he's speaking as a doctor of that field.

dr phil isnt a friend of the spears family. he is just a busybody who decided that it was his duty (not unlike tom cruise and his "scientologists are the only ones who can help in a car accident") to help out poor brittney.

im sure it had NOTHING to do with his desire to enhance his image as psychologist extraordinaire.

what might end up being his salvation is that brittney refused to see him. she was no more interested in being treated by him than any one of us are.

yeah i get all my BS/dr phil news off a 2 minute hollywood segment on the radio in the morning. its amazing how much can be summed up in 30 seconds or less.

I believe this comes down to a matter of legal definitions. The line between friend and patient comes when the professional offers some manner of treatment. But what constitutes treatment? If he did a full analytical number and gave her extensive coaching, for his line of work I would personally consider that treatment. And why send Dr. Phil if that wasn't what was meant to happen?

Practicing I would consider treating patients. Even if you don't announce yourself officially as a business, he's still plying his trade. The only reason one would call Dr. Phil in to talk to a clearly disturbed person would be because he is a 'renowned' psychologist. I don't know if he could go there just as a friend. That's like kicking someone and saying that you were just swinging your leg in their direction, but it wasn't a kick. Psychologist + BS having a long talk, the outcome seems obvious. It is not a huge leap to assume they called him because of his profession. He can't advise as anything but a doctor. He can't remove his hat and declare that rank isn't an issue. If a doctor gives advice in his field, he's speaking as a doctor of that field.

now here's a question. would shows like Dr. Phil, Maury, Tyra Banks, Oprah, and even Jerry Springer constitute professional psychological sessions and thus requires all of them to 1) have a licence to practice and 2) have a degree in psychology?

now here's a question. would shows like Dr. Phil, Maury, Tyra Banks, Oprah, and even Jerry Springer constitute professional psychological sessions and thus requires all of them to 1) have a licence to practice and 2) have a degree in psychology?

none of those other people call themselves doctors. they dont pretend to give great psychological advice. its been a while since ive watched dr phil but it seems to me that he sometimes does things with people that greatly resembles therapy.

is there a "this is entertainment only" disclaimer at the end of his show?

But as you say, if he didn't represent himself as a professional, and just as someone who knows a lot about talking it wouldn't have been illegal, just like it isn't illegal for you to give us some insight in the law (very fast btw)

Very true, it's not even about the kind of advice he might give. A therapist might give the same advice to a friend as he would to a patient. It's how he represents himself. Did he go there with the intention of acting as a friend, or acting as a doctor? How would a reasonable person construed his actions? He went to the hospital, unsolicited, and offered his help to someone, as far as we know, he doesn't know and hasn't ever met.

Does that sound like a "personal" thing to do, or a "professional" thing ot do?

Epic lulz

none of those other people call themselves doctors. they dont pretend to give great psychological advice. its been a while since ive watched dr phil but it seems to me that he sometimes does things with people that greatly resembles therapy.

is there a "this is entertainment only" disclaimer at the end of his show?
dunno, since I don't watch those shows.

Wouldn't that only be illegal if he asked money for it?No, but Neo Art has already backed me up on that one.

Maybe someone who does know a lot about the law could help.My father's profession is psychology. As it happens, my own expertise is the scientific study of the law.

And I'm telling you, as an expert (who does not happen to require a license to practice), that if he represented himself as a mental health professional--and that would include accepting a request premised upon that representation, even if he didn't explicitly say so himself--then he is guilty of practicing psychology without a license.

The facts at this point are sparse enough that I would not presume to pass judgment, except to say that he is at best walking a very, very thin line.

now here's a question. would shows like Dr. Phil, Maury, Tyra Banks, Oprah, and even Jerry Springer constitute professional psychological sessions and thus requires all of them to 1) have a licence to practice and 2) have a degree in psychology?Dr. Phil's guests sign a waiver stating that they understand that they are not receiving professional services from a licensed therapist.

A spokeswoman for the Spears family told NBC's "Today" show the star's parents had asked McGraw to visit her in a hospital last week as a private favor when she was admitted after refusing, in a fit of hysterics, to hand back her two children to ex-husband Kevin Federline.

from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0961131020080109)

so the family did ask Dr. Phil to speak to their daughter.

Anyone have anything saying that he solicited them or behaved as tho he was there professionally?

from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0961131020080109)

so the family did ask Dr. Phil to speak to their daughter.

Anyone have anything saying that he solicited them or behaved as tho he was there professionally?
He was asked to be there in a professional capacity :rolleyes:

from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0961131020080109)

so the family did ask Dr. Phil to speak to their daughter.

Anyone have anything saying that he solicited them or behaved as tho he was there professionally?

sounds professional to me.

from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0961131020080109)

so the family did ask Dr. Phil to speak to their daughter.

Anyone have anything saying that he solicited them or behaved as tho he was there professionally?

that's...actually kind of worse for him. Did he have some personal relationship with the family? Was he a friend? If not...it really looks like the sought the help of a professional

that's...actually kind of worse for him. Did he have some personal relationship with the family? Was he a friend? If not...it really looks like the sought the help of a professionalRight. His only hope is that the positive law of California actually specifies that a fee must be charged to constitute representation. Common law definitions of professional representation seem clearly to cover his actions here.

Anyone feel like searching the California legal code? I'm not in the mood. :)

He was asked to be there in a professional capacity :rolleyes:


sounds professional to me.
or on a personal capacity. :rolleyes:

that's...actually kind of worse for him. Did he have some personal relationship with the family? Was he a friend? If not...it really looks like the sought the help of a professional
from some sources Like STAR MAGAZINE (yep. why I didn't quote it) his wife and Lynne Spears are long time friends.

or on a personal capacity. :rolleyes:


no it sounds totally professional.

your daughter is in the hospital in desperate need of help. you dont call dr phil to give her anything but mental help. the kind a doctor gives.

no it sounds totally professional.

your daughter is in the hospital in desperate need of help. you dont call dr phil to give her anything but mental help. the kind a doctor gives.

which is entirely the point. Why did they call him and what did they expect him to do? Be there for her as a family friend and a friendly face, or as a professional who counsels people who have mental troubles?

Because when you call in a doctor to visit your daughter in the hospital it certainly creates the inference that you wanted him there in his professional capacity as a doctor

Anyone feel like searching the California legal code? I'm not in the mood. :)

Not me...I'm not licensed to practice law in California :p

which is entirely the point. Why did they call him and what did they expect him to do? Be there for her as a family friend and a friendly face, or as a professional who counsels people who have mental troubles?

Because when you call in a doctor to visit your daughter in the hospital it certainly creates the inference that you wanted him there in his professional capacity as a doctor

thats my thought

although the spears are a rather disfunctional group.

if all they wanted was a steady non family adult to give her a shoulder to lean on, MRS phil is a much better choice.

which is entirely the point. Why did they call him and what did they expect him to do? Be there for her as a family friend and a friendly face, or as a professional who counsels people who have mental troubles?

Because when you call in a doctor to visit your daughter in the hospital it certainly creates the inference that you wanted him there in his professional capacity as a doctor

yep. did they call in DOCTOR Phil McGraw (television star) or did they call in Phil McGraw (Family friend) to see and speak to their daughter in the hospital?

or on a personal capacity. :rolleyes:
Irrelevant. He went to consult some one he didn't personally know who is having medical/psychological/crackpot problems. Personal visit or not, he was there in a professional capacity.

yep. did they call in DOCTOR Phil McGraw (television star) or did they call in Phil McGraw (Family friend) to see and speak to their daughter in the hospital?
You are trying to assert a difference where the very circumstances nullify one.

And when did Phil McGraw become a family friend? It was my understanding that the Spears parents respected him (as a "professional") so called him in.

Irrelevant. He went to consult some one he didn't personally know who is having medical/psychological/crackpot problems. Personal visit or not, he was there in a professional capacity. very relevant since his profession is "talk show host".

You are trying to assert a difference where the very circumstances nullify one.

And when did Phil McGraw become a family friend? It was my understanding that the Spears parents respected him (as a "professional") so called him in. from what I understand, they were long time friends (via their wives).

However, it's up to the board to determine if Phil McGraw practiced without a licence.

very relevant since his profession is "talk show host".

from what I understand, they were long time friends (via their wives).

However, it's up to the board to determine if Phil McGraw practiced without a licence.

yeah so, as always, it will depend on how good a lawyer dr phil has when the time comes.

yeah so, as always, it will depend on how good a lawyer dr phil has when the time comes.

hope he changed lawyers after his Texas thing... :p

hope he changed lawyers after his Texas thing... :p

me too!

but he can afford a whole nother level of lawyerly expertise now.

and california seems to be more lenient on people whose celebrity supports so many people.

very relevant since his profession is "talk show host".
But it isn't "An Hour with Phil McGraw," it is "Dr Phil." He is emphasizing his doctorate in psychology.

But it isn't "An Hour with Phil McGraw," it is "Dr Phil." He is emphasizing his doctorate in psychology.

which he can since as you said, he has his doctorate in Psychology. but that doesn't prove that he was acting as a LICENCED PROFESSIONAL (Practicing) psychologist.

they have to prove that he was there as a Licenced professional psychologist and not someone with the skills and knowledge obtained by his education.

he only lost his licence to practice psychology professionally in Texas (and did NOT aquire a licence in California) he still has his Doctorate thus he is still a 'Doctor'.

So the Evil Dr (Retrd) escapes again.....

So the Evil Dr (Retrd) escapes again.....

dunno. if it can be proven that he practiced psychology as a licenced professional, then they can nail him for that. otherwise, he's just giving his non licenced, educated, personal opinion.