The Alabama Board of Examiners in Psychology v. Leroy Richardson, Psy.D

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel:09/25/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080338 The Alabama Board o f Examiners i n Psychology v. Leroy Richardson, Psy.D. Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-864) PITTMAN, J u d g e . The Board") Court Alabama appeals reversing license issued Board from o f Examiners i n P s y c h o l o g y ("the a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery an o r d e r of t h e Board t o Leroy Richardson that to Circuit had suspended a practice as a 2080338 psychologist and Richardson. The the We that had reverse the imposed other sanctions c i r c u i t court's r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t R i c h a r d s o n was Board i n 1997. Richardson Services Campus was From about t h a t e m p l o y e d by ("DYS") as in the the the judgment. f i r s t l i c e n s e d by time u n t i l e a r l y Alabama Department campus p s y c h o l o g i s t Birmingham area. against During 2003, Youth DYS's at of Vacca time that the R i c h a r d s o n w o r k e d a t t h e V a c c a Campus, he f r e q u e n t l y a r r a n g e d for "tours" suggested of they the might campus for later local turn " t o u r s , " v i s i t i n g young p e o p l e 10 fitted with metal crime. and that convince the as the the resident behavior During those t o 15 y e a r s o l d were often intermingled r e q u i r e d t o p e r f o r m t h e same t o u n d e r g o many o f t h e same e x p e r i e n c e s , punishments, reflects whose l e g s h a c k l e s ; t h e y were a l s o w i t h the r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n c h o r e s and to youth population. o s t e n s i b l e purpose of The those including record tours was also to young v i s i t o r s t h a t c h a n g i n g t h e i r b e h a v i o r for t h e b e t t e r w o u l d be p r e f e r a b l e t o b e c o m i n g a r e s i d e n t o f the campus. During Richardson's tenure at the campus, v i s i t o r s were b r o u g h t i n i n d i v i d u a l l y by p a r e n t s , s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 2 and 2080338 o t h e r s , and t h e v i s i t o r s w o u l d t y p i c a l l y s p e n d anywhere two t o e i g h t h o u r s i n s i d e t h e s e c u r e f a c i l i t y . With 1 from specific r e f e r e n c e t o t h o s e campus v i s i t s , t h e B o a r d c h a r g e d R i c h a r d s o n with failing visitors, parents to failing or legal conduct to initial obtain the guardians, maintain documentation assessments informed and of the consent failing to o f h i s work, p r a c t i c e s "tour" of their produce and identified by the B o a r d as b e i n g i n v i o l a t i o n o f A l a b a m a s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g the practice judge of psychology. The Board's ("ALJ") r e v i e w e d t e s t i m o n i a l administrative e v i d e n c e f r o m an Alabama P e r s o n n e l Board h e a r i n g r e l a t e d t o t h e " t o u r " law earlier program. The A L J s u b m i t t e d p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law to the Board, and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s and i m p o s e d the Board adopted the ALJ's s a n c t i o n s on R i c h a r d s o n . P u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 , R i c h a r d s o n s o u g h t j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f t h e B o a r d ' s o r d e r i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t Court. After the p a r t i e s had f i l e d written submissions i n support of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s , the c i r c u i t court h e l d a hearing, at which that court heard o r a l argument f r o m the T h r o u g h o u t t h e r e c o r d , t h e " t o u r " p r o g r a m was r e f e r r e d t o as a " S c a r e d S t r a i g h t " p r o g r a m , a l t h o u g h t h a t t e r m was n o t p r e f e r r e d by R i c h a r d s o n . 1 3 2080338 parties' attorneys. reversing 1975, The c i r c u i t c o u r t t h e n e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t the Board's o r d e r on t h e a u t h o r i t y § 41-22-20(k)(6) and (7); the court o f A l a . Code opined that the B o a r d ' s o r d e r was " c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s " i n v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d a n d was " u n r e a s o n a b l e , a r b i t r a r y , o r c a p r i c i o u s o r c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n o r [ w a s ] a c l e a r l y unwarranted circuit exercise court's of discretion." judgment was The i t s view basis that f o r the the Board had f a i l e d t o prove t h a t a " p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " had e x i s t e d between R i c h a r d s o n and any o f t h e c h i l d r e n b r o u g h t to the campus f o r t h e " t o u r " o r t h e i r p a r e n t s ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , i n t h e view of the c i r c u i t Richardson c o u r t , t h e Board had f a i l e d actually services." The conclusion that psychological had circuit services, violating. providing court then Richardson that have v i o l a t e d t h e e t h i c a l with been had t o prove "psychological deduced, not that been Richardson could p r i n c i p l e s the Board from i t s providing not p o s s i b l y charged him 2 B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e B o a r d c o u l d have p r o p e r l y determined that Richardson had provided psychological s e r v i c e s , we do n o t a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h a t d e d u c t i o n was correct. 2 4 2080338 U n d e r A l a . Code empowered to discretion, a d o p t e d by 1975, suspend § or a psychologist the r u l e s and of e t h i c s i n f o r c e d u r i n g 34-26-46(a)(17), otherwise who Board discipline, v i o l a t e s the regulations the code at of of the B o a r d . the r e l e v a n t p e r i o d , is its ethics The code 1997-2003, was the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n ' s E t h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s of Psychologists pursuant to Principle and Code o f C o n d u c t 1992, A l a . A d m i n . Code, 2.01, Interventions titled Rule a d o p t e d by the 750-X-6-.02. "Evaluation, Board Ethical Diagnosis, i n Professional Context," provides as and follows: "(a) Psychologists perform evaluations, d i a g n o s t i c s e r v i c e s , or i n t e r v e n t i o n s o n l y w i t h i n the context of a d e f i n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . "(b) Psychologists' assessments, recommendations, reports, and psychological d i a g n o s t i c o r e v a l u a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s a r e b a s e d on information and techniques (including personal interviews of the i n d i v i d u a l when appropriate) s u f f i c i e n t to provide appropriate s u b s t a n t i a t i o n for their findings. ..." I t was with under t h a t p r i n c i p l e t h a t the Board charged R i c h a r d s o n having "tour" The failed to conduct initial assessments further charged Richardson of the visitors. Board with failing to a c q u i r e i n f o r m e d consent from the c h i l d r e n or t h e i r p a r e n t s or 5 2080338 legal guardians "Informed Consent under Ethical t o Therapy," Principle which 4.02, entitled states: "(a) P s y c h o l o g i s t s o b t a i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n f o r m e d consent t o therapy or r e l a t e d procedures, u s i n g language that i s reasonably understandable t o p a r t i c i p a n t s . ... "(b) When p e r s o n s a r e l e g a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f giving informed consent, psychologists obtain informed permission from a legally authorized person, i f such s u b s t i t u t e consent i s p e r m i t t e d by law. " ( c ) I n a d d i t i o n , p s y c h o l o g i s t s (1) i n f o r m t h o s e p e r s o n s who a r e l e g a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f g i v i n g i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t a b o u t t h e p r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n a manner commensurate with the persons' psychological capacities, (2) s e e k their assent to those interventions, a n d (3) c o n s i d e r s u c h persons' p r e f e r e n c e s and b e s t i n t e r e s t s . " F i n a l l y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o Richardson's f a i l u r e t o produce and maintain documentation of h i s consultations with the " t o u r " v i s i t o r s , t h e B o a r d c i t e d two p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e E t h i c a l Principles a n d Code "Documentation o f Conduct. Provision 1.23, e n t i t l e d o f P r o f e s s i o n a l a n d S c i e n t i f i c Work," p r o v i d e s : " ( a ) P s y c h o l o g i s t s a p p r o p r i a t e l y document t h e i r professional and s c i e n t i f i c work i n order t o f a c i l i t a t e p r o v i s i o n o f s e r v i c e s l a t e r b y them o r b y o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s , t o ensure a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , and t o meet o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s o r t h e law. "(b) When p s y c h o l o g i s t s h a v e r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t r e c o r d s o f t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s w i l l be 6 2080338 used i n l e g a l proceedings i n v o l v i n g r e c i p i e n t s of or participants in their work, they have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o c r e a t e and m a i n t a i n d o c u m e n t a t i o n i n t h e k i n d o f d e t a i l and q u a l i t y t h a t w o u l d be consistent with reasonable scrutiny in an a d j u d i c a t i v e f o r u m . ... " Also, provision that 1.24, psychologists store, are to research, and in " R e c o r d s and D a t a , " "create, r e t a i n , and d i s p o s e their law entitled of records p r a c t i c e , and o t h e r a manner that the hearing in the disseminate, and d a t a relating work i n a c c o r d a n c e permits r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s E t h i c s Code. At maintain, provides compliance with to with the ... " circuit court, Richardson m a i n t a i n e d , and t h e c o u r t agreed, t h a t t h e B o a r d had f a i l e d t o prove a necessary p r e d i c a t e f o r t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f each o f t h o s e e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s o r p r o v i s i o n s -- i n s h o r t , Board had failed t o prove that Richardson that the had d e v e l o p e d a " d e f i n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , t h a t he had conducted "professional" "tour" v i s i t o r s . "therapy," or or " s c i e n t i f i c that work" he had done or " p r a c t i c e " with any the The c i r c u i t c o u r t n o t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s , e s t a b l i s h e d i n the record and n o t c o n t r o v e r t e d on a p p e a l , in s u p p o r t o f i t s j u d g m e n t : R i c h a r d s o n was r e q u i r e d t o meet w i t h the " t o u r " v i s i t o r s , t h e i r parents, 7 o r b o t h upon t h e i r arrival 2080338 at the campus; he minutes; and he t h e r e a f t e r t u r n e d t h e " t o u r " v i s i t o r s o v e r t o o t h e r s a t the facility and The the courts same. Bd. , 7 So. review never spoke w i t h standard circuit is s p o k e w i t h them f o r o n l y a few and appellate by this court A l a b a m a Dep't o f 3d 380, standard administrative of them 384 is again. review be applied by in administrative-law Youth Servs. ( A l a . C i v . App. deferential to 2008). toward v. cases State The the the Pers. appropriate decision of the agency: " J u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f an a g e n c y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e decision i s l i m i t e d to d e t e r m i n i n g whether the decision i s s u p p o r t e d by substantial evidence, w h e t h e r t h e a g e n c y ' s a c t i o n s were r e a s o n a b l e , and w h e t h e r i t s a c t i o n s were w i t h i n i t s s t a t u t o r y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o w e r s . ... J u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s a l s o l i m i t e d by t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s which a t t a c h e s t o a d e c i s i o n by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y . " A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v. P e o p l e s , 549 C i v . App. 1989) ( c i t i n g cases). So. 2d 504, 506 (Ala. Also, " [ e ] x c e p t where j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s by t r i a l de novo, t h e a g e n c y o r d e r s h a l l be t a k e n as p r i m a f a c i e j u s t and r e a s o n a b l e and t h e c o u r t s h a l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e a g e n c y as t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , e x c e p t where o t h e r w i s e a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e . " A l a . Code 1975, a state § 41-22-20(k). administrative "In reviewing agency, 8 '[t]he the d e c i s i o n of s p e c i a l competence of 2080338 the agency decision lends must capricious great be weight affirmed, t o i t s d e c i s i o n , and t h a t unless i t i s arbitrary o r n o t made i n c o m p l i a n c e and w i t h a p p l i c a b l e law.'" C o l o n i a l Mgmt. Group, L.P. v. S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g a n d Dev. Agency, 853 So. 2d 972, 975 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) Alabama Renal Coordinating 1993)) . Stone I n s t . , Council, "Neither substitute 628 So. 2d 8 2 1 , 823 this court i t s judgment agency." Renal I n c . v. A l a b a m a S t a t e w i d e Stone, f o r that 1986)). true testimony i s generalized, the reasonable minds Care Agency, State Auth. might differ Health Planning Alabama, 469 So. 2d Further, "an a g e n c y ' s even evidence i s meager, v. S t a t e & R e s . Dev. A d m i n . (Ala. interpretation appear as reasonable as 9 some Health and result." Planning (citing v. R i v e n d e l l o f C i v . App. o f i t s own other Civ. where t h e ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989) 6 1 3 [ , 615] may Alabama 177] ( A l a . i n cases r e g u l a t i o n must s t a n d i f i t i s r e a s o n a b l e , not (citing as t o t h e c o r r e c t of Huntsville 549 So. 2d 973, 975 court App. the administrative 497 So. 2d 1 7 6 [ , holds Health "This of Health (Ala. C i v . the t r i a l 628 So. 2d a t 823 M e d i c a i d Agency v. Norred, App. nor (quoting 1985)). rule or e v e n t h o u g h i t may interpretation." 2080338 Sylacauga Health P l a n n i n g Agency, Finally, this Care 662 Ctr, So. court Inc. 2d 265, does v. Alabama not Health ( A l a . C i v . App. 268 State 1994). apply a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s t o a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on r e v i e w o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y ' s d e c i s i o n " b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t is i n no b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o r e v i e w an a g e n c y ' s d e c i s i o n this c o u r t . " A l a b a m a Bd. 1028, So. 1033 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 258, 261 In t h i s circuit reflects in addition i n i t s order t h a t t h e A L J and Richardson indicating personnel whether to P e t e r s o n , 976 So. 2007) ( c i t i n g C l a r k v. F a n c h e r , ( A l a . C i v . App. case, court o f N u r s i n g v. to the evidence set the Board put 2d 662 1994). and t h a t he than had out n o t e d by above, reviewed the particular record testimony i n s t r u c t e d Vacca "tour" the from security visitors in s h a c k l e s and t h a t he h a d t o l d t h e s e c u r i t y p e r s o n n e l where on t h e campus t o t a k e t h e v i s i t o r s . "So The ALJ asked Richardson: you made a l l d e c i s i o n s r e l e v a n t t o t h e c h i l d b e i n g here and what t h e y w o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r do w h i l e t h e y were h e r e ; is that correct?"; Richardson then replied, "Right, s i r . " Hence, a l t h o u g h R i c h a r d s o n p e r s o n a l l y s p e n t o n l y a few minutes w i t h each f o r the "tour" v i s i t o r , he a d m i t t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 10 2080338 complete two- to visitor would eight-hour have, aversive experience which included Richardson's i n d i v i d u a l i z e d d e c i s i o n s as t o e a c h v i s i t o r , leg s h a c k l e s were a p p r o p r i a t e . Board The also contained c o n f l i c t i n g hours-long experiences that making s u c h as w h e t h e r record reviewed evidence each as by the to whether the i n question constituted "therapy" or "treatment," an a f f i r m a t i v e answer t o w h i c h would then b r i n g Richardson, having " a l l decisions" responsibility for r e g a r d i n g the v i s i t o r s , w i t h i n the p r a c t i c e of psychology subject to principles It the and thus above-mentioned regulations and and ethical provisions. appears plain that the record contains s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , d e f i n e d as " ' e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of and impartial j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be 262, Co. the proved,'" 268 ( A l a . 1996) of F l o r i d a , Board's established visitors Ex -- 547 parte T r i n i t y Inc., 680 ( q u o t i n g West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e So. 2d 870, determination a Indus., professional 871 that (Ala. 1989)), Richardson relationship i n o t h e r w o r d s , t h a t he was 11 with So. 2d Assurance to had the support indeed "tour" p r o v i d i n g therapy or 2080338 p s y c h o l o g i c a l s e r v i c e s and h e n c e was regulations licensing governing the s u b j e c t to the r u l e s practice of of p s y c h o l o g i s t s i n Alabama visitors, making experience at decisions the campus, psychology -- by regarding and sending and the receiving their them and such hours-long along to other campus w o r k e r s so t h a t t h e v i s i t o r s m i g h t have t h e e x p e r i e n c e s R i c h a r d s o n h a d c h o s e n f o r them. t h u s due this The B o a r d ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t o be u p h e l d u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w governing case. Richardson also contends that the circuit j u d g m e n t o f r e v e r s a l i s p r o p e r on o t h e r g r o u n d s . court's judgment reversing the Board's order court's The is circuit premised, h o w e v e r , s o l e l y upon t h e p r o p o s i t i o n , w h i c h we h a v e r e j e c t e d , that the because Board his psychology lacked activities and regulatory authority d i d not therefore jurisdiction. grounds cited by Board's disciplinary Richardson not thus as discipline constitute were We order; to within do not warranting rather, the the Richardson practice the reach Board's the reversal propriety other of of the those g r o u n d s s h o u l d be d e c i d e d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on remand. Covin v. A l a b a m a Bd. of Exam'rs 12 i n Counseling, of 712 So. See 2d 2080338 1103, 1107 & n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( d e c l i n i n g t o a d d r e s s substantive defense r a i s e d by agency administrative-review judgment proceedings a n d a g e n c y members i n when o f d i s m i s s a l had been b a s e d circuit solely court's upon erroneous ground of l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n ) . The circuit disciplinary Richardson court's order, was judgment i n which subject the Board to the p r i n c i p l e s and p r o v i s i o n s g o v e r n i n g in Alabama, was e r r o n e o u s . remand t h e c a u s e w i t h consider the merits m i g h t have p r o p e r l y reversing We the had concluded regulations and reverse o f any r e m a i n i n g properly raised i n that that ethical the p r a c t i c e of psychology that judgment and instructions f o rthe c i r c u i t preserved Board's issues that court t o Richardson i n t h e Board p r o c e e d i n g s and court. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 13 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.