A complaint filed about Dr. Phil — but is it well-founded?
As a follow-up to my previous posts about Dr. Phil’s actions and statements concerning Britney Spears — and my questions as to Cedars-Sinai actions with respect to patient privacy — I’ve kept an eye out for follow-ups. Two of note in today’s news:
TMZ reiterates rumors from Gatecrasher that cite an unnamed source saying that since the Spears mess, Dr. Phil is having trouble getting A-list celebrities to appear on his 1,000th show. How much credibility you give an unnamed “source familiar with the booking process” is up to you.
Of more interest to me, TMZ also reproduces a copy of a complaint [pdf] filed with the California Board of Psychology. TMZ claims that the person filing the complaint is a psychologist.
For the record: I did not file that complaint. Because the complaint was dated yesterday, I will go out on a limb and assume that the individual filing the complaint gave it to TMZ, which in and of itself, would be enough to raise red flags. As to the charges in the complaint, the complaint alleges:
He is violating HIPAA.
To the best of my knowledge, McGraw is not a HIPAA-covered entity. Even if he was a licensed psychologist acting in a professional capacity, he might not be a HIPAA-covered entity. I continue to have my own questions about the hospital’s actions in terms of protecting Spears’ privacy, although my concerns may not be covered by HIPAA, other privacy laws, or any law. I should also point out that even if he had violated HIPAA (and I don’t think he did because it doesn’t apply to him), then the California Board of Psychology is not the right authority to investigate that complaint.
The complaint also says:
By giving advice, he is practicing without a license.
I think most psychologists know that licenses aren’t required to give advice. If they were, every mother in the country would have to be licensed as a psychologist.
The complaint continues:
In any event, by discussing or divulging a patient’s medical condition with anyone
Since Spears was not his patient, that doesn’t apply.
So what is there, if anything, in this complaint, that the California Board of Psychology can do anything about? Nothing, from what I can see in the wording of the complaint.
Finally, the complaint also states:
A petition is being circulated to remove the “Dr. Phil” show from the air.
TMZ comments:
We’re told the shrink is trying to get other psychologists to sign.
There’s been no such petition on what is probably the biggest professional mail list for licensed psychologists in this country. I would bet that a number of mental health professionals — not just psychologists — would sign such a petition, but why would the network remove a show that’s a big money-maker for them? Perhaps it would make more sense to go after the show’s sponsors and boycott them. Or to work with the California Board of Psychology and consumer protection agencies to consider whether the public is adequately protected by allowing some things as “entertainment” without adequate disclaimers.
Personally, if California can’t stop someone from giving advice and they can’t stop someone from using the title “Dr.” if they have a doctorate, I think the best way to protect consumers may be by simply requiring his show to carry a huge disclaimer at the beginning that “Dr. Phil” is not a licensed professional and that in many cases, he is not adhering to professionally recommended treatments or approaches.
But even that wouldn’t have helped Britney Spears, which is why I continue to have questions about the hospital permitting him to enter her room.
Update: Jennifer Vineyard has an article on MTV that has some interesting additional info, as well as an error. Referring to the same complaint I discussed above, Vineyard writes:
Though the California Board of Psychology is compelled to investigate all complaints, this one might not have much ground. According to state regulators, McGraw would have had to practice psychology in the legal sense, which is clearly defined in Section 2903 of the California Business and Professions Code: “The practice of psychology is defined as rendering or offering to render for a fee … any psychological service involving the application of psychological principles, methods and procedures … [such as] the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, behavior modification and hypnosis.”
[...]
When McGraw’s TV show, “Dr. Phil,” started airing in 2002, the California Board of Psychology convened a panel to decide if he was acting as a clinical psychologist and in need of a license. They determined that what he was “practicing” was entertainment, not psychology, and passed on regulating him.
They may want to revisit the issue.
I must confess that I am not clear on what California’s code means. The fact that there was no fee involved cannot or should not be sufficient to say “it’s not the practice of psychology,” otherwise any time a psychologist treated a patient for free or without charge, they would not be considered practicing professionally. What is the distinction between giving advice and “counseling?” under California code? Anyone know?
Vineyard also writes:
McGraw isn’t currently licensed to practice psychology in his home of Texas, either, since he has yet to complete the conditions imposed as disciplinary sanctions by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989. 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.
To set the record straight on this: I spoke with someone in the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists earlier this week. She informed me that McGraw did complete all of the terms of the disciplinary sanctions and voluntarily retired his license. I wasn’t willing to pay $30.00 to find out the date he retired it.
The complaint was probably filed by the lousy celebrity doctor- Dr Drew. Don’t like the guy at all, seems he is a bit bitter towards Dr Phil(look at the way he talks about him). Go to Dr Drew’s website, very trashy, more like he’s the National Enquirer doctor.
The box “Mrs.” was checked next to the complainant’s name space. Also, he’s a physician and not a psychologist.
According to Brenda Shriff at the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in Austin, Texas, 512-305-7700 Dr. Phil’s license has been on “inactive” status for nearly 20 years. His license status was last listed as “inactive” and he “May Not provide psychological service.” Dr. Phil has NEVER had an active license for any time he was on television. His failure to resolve a complaint against a patient who alleged he violated the “dual role” provision of professional ethics. She began as a client. He wanted to sleep with her, which was against professional ethics. So he fired her as a patient, hired her as a secretary and had his way. I presume she wanted another promotion, from secretary to wife. He said no, so he filed a complaint which cost him his license, No 22041. Write the state and ask for the full record. Since he never resolved it, he cannot join the American Psychological Association or any other national professional organization. Oprah’s favorite psychologist lost his license for the equivalent of sex abuse with a patient. For a woman who claims to champion sex abuse victims everywhere, who admits to being violated by members of her own family, what whas she thinking introducing him to America? The real issue with Britney is not his professional license, but his professional ethics. If he could use the relationship to get over, he would. Check out Kathy Griffin’s latest rage when she did a Larry King roast. She says he was putting the moves on Jane Fonda by bragging his wife would be jealous at all the pawing he was doing. Dr. Phil is a master of “pop” psychology. That’s the one area of psychology where the nonsense you believe is the nonsense you want to her. Anything he said to Britney would be guaranteed to cause her MORE problems, not less. tg
That’s interesting, because that’s the very person I spoke to earlier this week and she told me that he had completed all of the terms of the disciplinary action and had voluntarily retired his license (at some unspecified date).
I did not discuss with her any details of the underlying complaint. My question was simply whether he had completed the required course, supervision, etc. And she told me “yes” to that.
So maybe I will write to them, as you and I have been given radically different answers.
While you may have a point that he is not “practicing psychology” read instead California Business and Professions Code 2902(c) and the definition of representing yourself to be a psychologist when you have no license, and then read B&P 2903 that makes it unlawful to EITHER practice psychology OR hold yourself out to be a psychologist. Phil McGraw has said many times “as a psychologist” I think….. and his website even calls him a psychologist. If you Google his name, many articles written by the media refer to him as a psychologist, so the whole world got the impression he is a psychologist somehow, and he has never clearly said he is not. Thus, the Board of Psychology can take action for violating the “representing yourself” provisions rather than the practicing psychology provisions.
Also read Business and Professions code section 2054 under the physcian’s licensing law. It is unlawful to use the term “doctor” implying you are licensed as a physician when you are not. McGraw freely uses the term doctor implying he is some form of licensed healing arts professional, and he is not. Each of those professions, psychology or physicians have statutes making it illegal to even claim to be such a professional without a license, IN ADDITION to actually practicing that profession for a fee. Check this out, and I think you will find a basis for some type of action against him.
The Board of Psychology probably does not have the nerve to deal with this despite the law above.
I looked at his site and I don’t see where his web site calls him a psychologist or represents him as a psychologist (certainly not on the bio page). If you saw/see specific text, please point me to it. They can legitimately say that he has a doctorate in clinical psychology.
He is not responsible (legally, as I understand it) if others call him a psychologist. So if all the entertainment sites refer to him as a psychologist and all his fans or folks on his message boards call him a psychologist, my understanding is that you can’t hold him liable for that, although it would be nice if he made it clear to them that he is not a psychologist.
If he does say “As a psychologist, I think…” then I agree that he is representing himself as a psychologist and that might be a matter for the state. Do you have any specific examples that are available for reading or listening to online? If you do, please feel free to post them here or email me.