Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Aspen Education Group => Topic started by: Ursus on September 24, 2009, 10:33:25 PM
-
http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/6:05-cv ... 80-DOR.pdf (http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/6:05-cv-06199-80-DOR.pdf) (11 pp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Civ. No. 05-6199-HO
ORDER
MATTHEW E. PENCE, et al., Plaintiffs,[/list]
v.[/list][/list]
ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP, INC., Defendants.[/list]
The complaint contains claims for breach of contract, breach of confidential relationship, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The claims arise from the decision to expel plaintiff Matthew Pence from The NorthStar Center, LLC residential counseling and education program, and to report his confessed conduct to police.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their third claim for negligent provision of counseling/therapy and their fourth claim for violation of confidentiality. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment against all claims.
Undisputed Facts
Matthew Pence enrolled at NorthStar on September 6, 2002. Matthew Pence signed an agreement to, inter alia, fully participate in the program for one year and abide by the Honor Code and house rules. Ex. I.
In a February 2003 examination scheduled by NorthStar staff, Dr. McAllister diagnosed Matthew Pence with depression and provided Matthew with samples of anti-depressant medication.
On July 2, 2003, Matthew Pence met with Acting Program Director Sue Harless. Matthew Pence testified that he "had these negative contracts, which is a term used for breaking the Honor Code . . ." Ex. N. at 2 (Matthew Pence Depo. at 17:22-24). Matthew Pence provided Harless with a list of eight confessions, including that he broke into an office and peered into female students' rooms after accessing the roof of the NorthStar facility. Ex. O.
Harless asked Matthew Pence whether he wished to remain in the program. Matthew Pence was initially uncertain. Harless scheduled another meeting later in the day on July 2, 2003, to discuss Matthew's choice. At the later meeting, Harless and staff member Sean Fiviet notified Matthew Pence that he was expelled from NorthStar, and that he was to remove all his possessions from NorthStar's property. Harless reported Matthew Pence's confessions to police officers.
Matthew Pence met with NorthStar counselor Trudy Godat sometime around 5:00 or 5:30PM on July 2, 2003. During the meeting, Harless arrived with two police officers. The officers produced the list of confessions Matthew Pence previously furnished to Harless. Harless did not ask Matthew Pence for permission to disclose his confessions to police. Matthew Pence testified that he answered "yes" when the officers asked him if he accessed offices at Northstar when he was not supposed to. Ex. N at 6 (Matthew Pence Depo. at 52:22-22). The officers arrested, handcuffed and jailed Matthew Pence. A grand jury returned an indictment charging Matthew Pence with Burglary 1 and Burglary 2.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
I. First Claim - Breach of Contract
Plaintiffs Robert Pence and Shirley Kolm allege that defendants breached the contract between the parties, causing plaintiffs to lose $58,500 in consideration paid, and $25,000 in consequential damages. Defendants contend that plaintiffs present no evidence to support the breach of contract claim, tuition is not refundable under the terms of the contract, Robert Pence had no complaint about NorthStar prior to the middle of May 2003, and Robert Pence allowed Matthew to return to the program in June 2003, after Matthew briefly left the program.
Plaintiffs point to "an agreement defining the responsibilities of the Student, the Sponsor and The NorthStar Center, LLC regarding each student's program," whereby NorthStar agreed to "[p]rovide group and individual counseling as dictated by program design" (exhibit I), and to advertising materials stating that students receive individual and group counseling, including "psycho-educational group"1 to help with substance abuse and depression (exhibit T). Plaintiffs complain that Matthew Pence was seen by an unlicensed therapist, Trudy Godat, when Matthew's depression significantly worsened, his personal psychiatrist was not contacted, an appointment with a different psychiatrist was scheduled at a future date, Matthew did not receive supervision and a safe environment, Matthew was instead allowed to roam the premises and gain access to the roof, offices and computers, Matthew's confessions were turned over to police, and Matthew was expelled, arrested and indicted.
Defendants point to provisions of the enrollment agreement stating that tuition and fees are non-refundable through the quarter the participant voluntarily leaves or is expelled from the program. Ex. 7 at 1. Because Matthew Pence was expelled in the fourth quarter, defendants contend that his parents are not entitled to a refund of tuition. Plaintiffs characterize this provision as an unreasonable, and therefore unenforceable, forecast of compensation for breach. See Ditommaso Realty, Inc. v. Moak Motorcycles, Inc., 785 P.2d 343 (Or. 1990).
Plaintiffs' assert in their concise statement of material fact that "[d]uring his enrollment, Matthew Pence participated in regularly-scheduled group and individual therapeutic counseling sessions as required by NorthStar." Pls' CSMF, ¶ 3. To the extent Robert Pence and Shirley Kolm claim breach of contract regarding provision of counseling services, their complaint concerns the manner or standard of treatment. NorthStar agreed to provide "group and individual counseling as dictated by program design." Plaintiffs point to no evidence that NorthStar failed to provide this group and individual counseling. NorthStar did not promise to do the things that plaintiffs complain they failed to do, such as provide counseling by a licensed counselor,2 contact Matthew Pence's psychiatrist, prevent Matthew Pence from breaking into an office and accessing the roof, and refrain from disclosing confessions to law enforcement and expelling Matthew Pence from the program.
Provisions of the enrollment agreement contemplate expulsion. These provisions do not concern liquidated damages, as they are not triggered by a breach. Rather, the provisions set the terms and timing of payment.
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Defendants' additional arguments that plaintiffs may not recover consequential damages, or damages from NorthStar's corporate parent and its predecessor, are moot.
II. Second Claim - IIED
The court agrees with defendants that Harless's alleged disclosure of Matthew Pence's confessions to police was not an extreme transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Matthew Pence's IIED claim therefore fails as a matter of law.
III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx
Expert witnesses disagree as to whether Matthew Pence's list of confessions was part of a therapeutic treatment program, whether NorthStar is a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program, and whether NorthStar personnel violated a standard of care applicable to counselors and therapists. See Dr. Larsen's Aff. (for defendants), Dr. Huffine's Aff. (for plaintiffs). Disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Matthew Pence or defendants on the third claim for negligent provision of mental health treatment.
IV. Fourth Claim - Breach of Confidential Relationship
The complaint alleges that defendants disclosed confidential information provided by Matthew Pence during a privileged counseling session designed to treat plaintiff's mental health condition, and that the disclosure constituted a breach of the confidential relationship between plaintiff and defendant. Complaint, ¶ 38.
If a statute or other source of law imposes a duty of confidentiality, one suffering the disclosure of confidential information in violation of that duty may maintain a common law tort claim for the breach. Humphers v. First Interstate Bank, 696 P.2d 527, 534-35 (Or. 1985). Plaintiffs find the duty of confidentiality in Oregon's confidentiality statute, Oregon statutes regulating professional counselors, and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Oregon's confidentiality statutes provide only that a confidential relationship is not breached if a disclosure is permitted by state or federal law. Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.523; Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.520. Because she is not a licensed counselor and there is no evidence she is an employee of a licensed counselor, Harless is not subject to confidentiality laws applicable to licensed counselors and their employees. Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.765.
There is evidence that NorthStar employees went through HIPAA training and took HIPAA quizzes prior to the disclosure at issue. Rose Aff., ¶ 4. This suggests the possibility that NorthStar may be a covered entity within the meaning of HIPAA. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no disputed issues of fact as to whether information conveyed by Harless to police was protected health information within the meaning of HIPAA, and whether NorthStar is a covered entity within the meaning of HIPAA.3
On this record, the breach of confidential relationship claim is not amenable to summary judgment for plaintiff or defendants.
V. Fifth Claim - Punitive Damages
By this claim, plaintiffs allege that defendants' conduct of notifying law enforcement with intention to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard of the effects of such notice, demonstrates particularly aggravated disregard for the rights of Matthew Pence, and justifies a punitive damage award of $1,000,000. Complaint, ¶ 43.
Punitive damages are not recoverable in a civil action unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the party against whom punitive damages are sought has acted with malice or has shown a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and has acted with a conscious indifference to the health, safety and welfare of others.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.730(1). Defendants contend that the communication to law enforcement is speech, and therefore may not form the basis for an award of punitive damages without violating the Oregon Constitution.
If a tort permits liability for the content of speech, punitive damages are not recoverable. If a tort permits liability for speech-caused harm, then a defendant who requests it is entitled to an instruction limiting the tortious predicate for punitive damages to conduct not protected by the free speech provision of Article I, section 8.
Huffman and Wright Logging Co. v. Wade, 857 P.2d 101, 110-11 (Or. 1993). The gravamen of plaintiff's fourth claim for breach of confidential duty is Harless's conduct of disclosing Pence's speech. The gravamen of negligent provision of mental health treatment is also conduct, rather than speech. Cf. Collegenet, Inc. v. Embark.Com, Inc., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1175-76 (D. Or. 2001) (gravamen of unfair competition claim is conduct, notwithstanding that plaintiff alleged defendant unfairly competed by making misrepresentations). At this stage, the court cannot say that the Oregon constitution bars an award of punitive damages. Defendants are free to argue at trial that plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages should not be submitted to the jury.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment [#38] is denied; defendants' motion for summary judgment [#48] is granted with respect to the first and second claims of the complaint, and otherwise denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2006.
s/ Michael R. Hogan
United States District Judge[/list]
-------- • -------- • -------- • -------- • -------- • -------- • --------
1 Based on plaintiffs' representation. The cited portion of the advertising materials is unintelligible.
2 The parties seem to agree that although Trudy Godat was not licenced, one member of Matthew Pence's "treatment team" was a licenced therapist.
3 Under HIPAA, a "covered entity" may disclose to law enforcement protected health information the covered entity believes in good faith constitutes evidence of criminal activity that occurred on the premises of the covered entity. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(f)(5).
A covered entity is "[a] health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by [45 C.F.R., Subchapter C]." "Transaction means the transmission of information between two parties to carry out financial or administrative activities related to health care." 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.
Protected health information means individually identifiable health information:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, that is:
(I) Transmitted by electronic media;
(ii) Maintained in electronic media; or
(iii) Transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.
(2) Protected health information excludes individually identifiable health information in:
(I) Education records covered by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1232g;
(ii) Records described at 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(4)(B)(iv); and
(iii) Employment records held by a covered entity in its role as employer.
Id.
Individually identifiable health information is information that is a subset of health information, including demographic information collected from an individual, and:
(1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and
(2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual; and
(I) That identifies the individual; or
(ii) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual.
Id.
-
This was an interesting point:
The court agrees with defendants (Aspen Education Group) that Harless's alleged disclosure of Matthew Pence's confessions to police was not an extreme transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Matthew Pence's IIED claim therefore fails as a matter of law.
-
As far as staff members go (Harless), the court determined that Aspen Education Group didnt do anything wrong here:
Because she is not a licensed counselor and there is no evidence she is an employee of a licensed counselor, Harless is not subject to confidentiality laws applicable to licensed counselors and their employees. Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.765.
So Hipaa laws do not apply to staff personnel unless they are reporting directly to a licensed counselor or have been thru training. All this is really good to know. If this was hislicensed therapist who talked then they would have a case...seems they got bad advice from their lawyer.
-
So all parties agreed that Aspen Education group provided a licensed therapist for Matthew Pence during his stay at NorthStar.
The parties seem to agree that ...... one member of Matthew Pence's "treatment team" was a licenced therapist.
What was Matthews lawyer thinking going to trial? They got killed on this one.
-
So Matthews parents asked for a million bucks and didnt get a dime because they had no case.
Sounds like a shake down to me and a lousy lawyer.
Matthews parents asked the judge: By this claim, plaintiffs allege that defendants' conduct of notifying law enforcement with intention to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard of the effects of such notice, demonstrates particularly aggravated disregard for the rights of Matthew Pence, and justifies a punitive damage award of $1,000,000. Complaint, ¶ 43.
The judge said: Punitive damages are not recoverable.
-
As far as staff members go (Harless), the court determined that Aspen Education Group didnt do anything wrong here:
Because she is not a licensed counselor and there is no evidence she is an employee of a licensed counselor, Harless is not subject to confidentiality laws applicable to licensed counselors and their employees. Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.765.
So Hipaa laws do not apply to staff personnel unless they are reporting directly to a licensed counselor or have been thru training. All this is really good to know. If this was hislicensed therapist who talked then they would have a case...seems they got bad advice from their lawyer.
Premature judgment on your part, Whooter. This was a request for summary judgment and the court did not rule on the entirety of Plaintiff's 4th Claim - Breach of Confidential Relationship, only part of it, specifically as it pertains to Harliss' conduct as an individual (as opposed to NorthStar or Aspen Educational Group as you aver). The rest of the claim continued to trial, as far as we know.
There is evidence that NorthStar employees went through HIPAA training and took HIPAA quizzes prior to the disclosure at issue. Rose Aff., ¶ 4. This suggests the possibility that NorthStar may be a covered entity within the meaning of HIPAA. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no disputed issues of fact as to whether information conveyed by Harless to police was protected health information within the meaning of HIPAA, and whether NorthStar is a covered entity within the meaning of HIPAA.3
On this record, the breach of confidential relationship claim is not amenable to summary judgment for plaintiff or defendants.[/list]
-
So Matthews parents asked for a million bucks and didnt get a dime because they had no case.
Sounds like a shake down to me and a lousy lawyer.
Matthews parents asked the judge: By this claim, plaintiffs allege that defendants' conduct of notifying law enforcement with intention to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard of the effects of such notice, demonstrates particularly aggravated disregard for the rights of Matthew Pence, and justifies a punitive damage award of $1,000,000. Complaint, ¶ 43.
The judge said: Punitive damages are not recoverable.
LOL. More premature presumptions on your part. The judge did NOT say that. Where do you read that, Whooter? Provide the link!
Defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Fifth Claim - Punitive Damages was denied.
At this stage, the court cannot say that the Oregon constitution bars an award of punitive damages. Defendants are free to argue at trial that plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages should not be submitted to the jury.[/list]
At the point in time that this document was created, the whole circus in the courtroom wasn't finished yet. Please read more carefully.
-
Aspen should put this on their web site. Not only did the pierces take a bath for the tuition but they couldn’t recover the lawyers’ fees. This is an incentive to never try to sue Aspen, that’s for sure. Aspen was being nice by not counter suing they could have probably taken away their house and retirement for harassing Northstar.
The Pierces lawyer should consider lowering his rate for them. Aspen will never take their child back into the program and I don’t blame them at this point after reading that, even though he needs help and the parents pissed away more money that could have gone towards further helping their child with this obviously ill advised law suit.
Matthew is the real loser here and I hope his parents can see clear to get him the help he needs as they move forward.
-
Aspen should put this on their web site. Not only did the pierces take a bath for the tuition but they couldn’t recover the lawyers’ fees. This is an incentive to never try to sue Aspen, that’s for sure. Aspen was being nice by not counter suing they could have probably taken away their house and retirement for harassing Northstar.
The Pierces lawyer should consider lowering his rate for them. Aspen will never take their child back into the program and I don’t blame them at this point after reading that, even though he needs help and the parents pissed away more money that could have gone towards further helping their child with this obviously ill advised law suit.
Matthew is the real loser here and I hope his parents can see clear to get him the help he needs as they move forward.
Who is "Pierce?" I spent a couple of hours copying and reformatting this document and the only mention of a "Pierce" that I've come across on this page, not to mention the past few days, is within your post. Are you drunk?
-
If I were Aspen, I would contact all the programs and make sure his parents sign a waiver if they try to get the boy back in to one of their programs. I think it is wrong to deny the child help because of the parents but they cant expect to tolerate people like this with harassing lawsuits.
Some people are just ungrateful and only think about the money when there is a child at stake.
-
Aspen should put this on their web site. Not only did the pierces take a bath for the tuition but they couldn’t recover the lawyers’ fees. This is an incentive to never try to sue Aspen, that’s for sure. Aspen was being nice by not counter suing they could have probably taken away their house and retirement for harassing Northstar.
The Pierces lawyer should consider lowering his rate for them. Aspen will never take their child back into the program and I don’t blame them at this point after reading that, even though he needs help and the parents pissed away more money that could have gone towards further helping their child with this obviously ill advised law suit.
Matthew is the real loser here and I hope his parents can see clear to get him the help he needs as they move forward.
Who is "Pierce?" I spent a couple of hours copying and reformatting this document and the only mention of a "Pierce" that I've come across on this page, not to mention the past few days, is within your post. Are you drunk?
I havent read any names "Pierce" myself, either, in the copy you posted. The family name is Pence, I believe. Matthew Pence. No I am not drunk but you seem "High". I can go back and check for typos if you like, Ursus, you can go back to what you were doing.
-
Whooter, look: get a hold of yourself.
This was a request for a summary judgment brought by both parties. Legal wranglings, to be sure, but not the whole hog jury trial like you see on Perry Mason. We don't even know, unless someone else out there can vouch for this, whether or not Aspen may have settled out of court to prevent that happening.
The be-all end-all conclusion so-it-be-ordered was thus:
"Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
[#38] is denied; defendants' motion for summary judgment [#48] is granted with respect to the first and second claims of the complaint, and otherwise denied."[/list]
To refresh your memory:
I. First Claim - Breach of Contract
II. Second Claim - IIED
III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx
IV. Fourth Claim - Breach of Confidential Relationship
V. Fifth Claim - Punitive Damages[/list]
Defendant Aspen Education Group's motion for summary judgment on the first two claims was granted:
I. First Claim - Breach of Contract
"Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim."
[/list]
II. Second Claim - IIED
"The court agrees with defendants that Harless's alleged disclosure of Matthew Pence's confessions to police was not an extreme transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Matthew Pence's IIED claim therefore fails as a matter of law."
[/list]
As far as the third, fourth, and fifth claims are concerned, those issues were still up for a jury's consideration, at least as of the creation of this document.
-
Aspen should put this on their web site. Not only did the pierces take a bath for the tuition but they couldn’t recover the lawyers’ fees. This is an incentive to never try to sue Aspen, that’s for sure. Aspen was being nice by not counter suing they could have probably taken away their house and retirement for harassing Northstar.
The Pierces lawyer should consider lowering his rate for them. Aspen will never take their child back into the program and I don’t blame them at this point after reading that, even though he needs help and the parents pissed away more money that could have gone towards further helping their child with this obviously ill advised law suit.
Matthew is the real loser here and I hope his parents can see clear to get him the help he needs as they move forward.
Who is "Pierce?" I spent a couple of hours copying and reformatting this document and the only mention of a "Pierce" that I've come across on this page, not to mention the past few days, is within your post. Are you drunk?
I havent read any names "Pierce" myself, either, in the copy you posted. The family name is Pence, I believe. Matthew Pence. No I am not drunk but you seem "High". I can go back and check for typos if you like, Ursus, you can go back to what you were doing.
Quoted for sheer unbelievable insanity factor.
-
Summary Judgment:
"In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment)[/list]
-
Does anyone know how this case turned out?
As I mentioned previously, probably in one of the several other threads discussing this case, I was unable to find any further mention of it despite extensive searching. The case as it stands right now, i.e., what has been posted above in the OP, is a summary judgment requested by both parties in the hopes of foregoing a jury trial.
The judge ruled on two of the five claims. The remaining three (which include the HIPAA issues as well as punitive damages sought) are assumed to continue to a jury trial.
It's possible that this case is stashed in one of those pay-per-view or subscriber archives such as WestLaw. It's also possible that it hasn't come to trial yet. And it's also possible that Aspen may have offered some kind of settlement to prevent said damning issues from seeing any more light of day.
-
Does anyone know how this case turned out?
As I mentioned previously, probably in one of the several other threads discussing this case, I was unable to find any further mention of it despite extensive searching. The case as it stands right now, i.e., what has been posted above in the OP, is a summary judgment requested by both parties in the hopes of foregoing a jury trial.
The judge ruled on two of the five claims. The remaining three (which include the HIPAA issues as well as punitive damages sought) are assumed to continue to a jury trial.
It's possible that this case is stashed in one of those pay-per-view or subscriber archives such as WestLaw. It's also possible that it hasn't come to trial yet. And it's also possible that Aspen may have offered some kind of settlement to prevent said damning issues from seeing any more light of day.
You left out the most probable which is the family was seeing they had no case and bailed out hoping Aspen wouldnt counter sue or under threat of counter suit. Their son already confessed to the police on site and is in jail so it would be tough to sue a place which would have helped their son.
-
More than likely what happened is the lawyer for North Star asked for summary judgment on the claims that were addressed, knowing he/she might be able to argue that they are devoid of legal foundation. Whereas the rest of the case is probably on-going and could take a long time to come about. Civil cases can run in to many years, which is a tactic often used by the defense in order to make the plaintiff have to continue to pay attorney fees.
The case may have settled, but the family may also not have wanted to in order to get it on the record that this prison camp is not a treatment center. Costs might not be a serious issue for them as many families who send their kids to these places are upper middle class to upper class. But either way, it is clear the information we have received so far does not tell us the case is over, only what has been ruled upon to date. I say we should just be patient, I am sure more information will be forthcoming.
-
Reading the case to date it doesnt look too good for the Pences, not very encouraging
-
Clearly they have a case or the other items would have been placed in Summary Judgment as well. And because they were not, and because there were clear disputes, those items could not be quickly ruled upon. However statements from Aspen Group attorneys may have set a solid precedent that will impact the rest of the case. And may eventually set a precedent for future cases.
-
Exactly, there is a lot of wrongdoing here. A summary judgment on 2 of 5 issues is hardly a "win" or a "clean slate" or "proof Aspen provides licensed therapists" - Aspen should be facing criminal charges for their actions. Getting sued is getting off light.
-
The US District Court Disagrees with you:
Take a look (http://http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/6:05-cv-06199-80-DOR.pdf)
So all parties agreed that Aspen Education group provided a licensed therapist for Matthew Pence during his stay at NorthStar.
The parties seem to agree that ...... one member of Matthew Pence's "treatment team" was a licenced therapist.
What was Matthews lawyer thinking going to trial? They got killed on this one.
-
Exactly, there is a lot of wrongdoing here. A summary judgment on 2 of 5 issues is hardly a "win" or a "clean slate" or "proof Aspen provides licensed therapists" - Aspen should be facing criminal charges for their actions. Getting sued is getting off light.
Yes, practicing therapy without a license as Aspen programs do is a criminal matter.
-
Great thread!! An interesting side point to all of this is that it was always thought here by many posters that kids couldn’t get out of a program once they were placed there and now we see that if a kid really wants to leave then all they have to do is break a few of the rules and they will be sent home.
Many here also thought jail was a better alternative to a program but if this were true then all the kids would follow Matthews lead and start breaking into the offices at night.
It’s good to see many of these myths finally being exposed. The kids in these programs are actually speaking up for themselves by staying and doing the work. I am sure Matthew feels by now that he shot himself in the foot.
-
Who are these "Many" you keep referring to?
I don't know of too many students who would have broken the law and go to jail or juvenile hall than stay. Just because a program is abusive and offering no real therapy or treatment, does not mean a teen would prefer to be locked up. What a valueless argument.
If a student could break a minor rule and go home, that would be worthwhile. Students run away all the time and are dragged back against their will. Hence the reason a number of people who post here consider these prison camps. And I have never heard of student peaking in to a dorm room and going to jail, or having police even called. There was statutory rape going on at some of these places and police were never called for those instances. And student-on-student violence as well, but again no police. This was not a common incident obviously. More likely Aspen couldn't control Matthew because his treatment and therapy was performed by untrained, unlicensed staff who were not capable of offering him direction and a source of inspiration.
Modern juvenile halls and jails are very scary places. Why leave one frightening environment for another? A pathetic argument. Try harder next time.
-
I don't know of too many students who would have broken the law and go to jail or juvenile hall than stay. Just because a program is abusive and offering no real therapy or treatment, does not mean a teen would prefer to be locked up. What a valueless argument.
No I haven’t either, but there was a discussion awhile back where posters here thought kids would prefer jail over a program. Arguing that at least in jail they could sit back and watch HBO and not be forced into group therapy.
This shows that not to be true.
If a student could break a minor rule and go home, that would be worthwhile. Students run away all the time and are dragged back against their will. Hence the reason a number of people who post here consider these prison camps.
The programs that I am familiar with will send you home if you break the rules or try to run away (more than once). Some give you a warning first but if you continue to break rules your out. I believe the programs of the past would just hold a kid no matter what the kid did. Its not that way anymore and judging from the number of kids getting kicked out or sent to jail the program seems to be the better choice for them.
-
Seems we agree that programs are a much better alternative to jail or juvy even if they lack any type of treatment. This sentiment has changed due to the softening of the industry over the years. A kid in programs 15 -20 years ago would chose jail over the program in a heart beat.
-
Seems we agree that programs are a much better alternative to jail or juvy even if they lack any type of treatment. This sentiment has changed due to the softening of the industry over the years. A kid in programs 15 -20 years ago would chose jail over the program in a heart beat.
Youre absurd, John. From misrepresenting the contents of the lawsuit which are plain to anyone who can read, to killing your son. AEG’s legal position is that Northstar is in no way a treatment center for mental or drug disorders(as can construed in any legal sense), that it’s program of phases and confessions is not therapeutic(in any legal sense of the word), and you killed you son. Case closed.
-
Seems we agree that programs are a much better alternative to jail or juvy even if they lack any type of treatment. This sentiment has changed due to the softening of the industry over the years. A kid in programs 15 -20 years ago would chose jail over the program in a heart beat.
Youre absurd, John. From misrepresenting the contents of the lawsuit which are plain to anyone who can read, to killing your son. AEG’s legal position is that Northstar is in no way a treatment center for mental or drug disorders(as can construed in any legal sense), that it’s program of phases and confessions is not therapeutic(in any legal sense of the word), and you killed you son. Case closed.
Well , you could be right, but I didnt see any bases for your argument so I must dismiss it. But lets take a look at the court case again:
Darn, The US District Court Disagrees with you again:
Take a look (http://http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/6:05-cv-06199-80-DOR.pdf)
So all parties agreed that Aspen Education group provided a licensed therapist for Matthew Pence during his stay at NorthStar.
The parties seem to agree that ...... one member of Matthew Pence's "treatment team" was a licenced therapist.
What was Matthews lawyer thinking going to trial? They got killed on this one.
-
Exactly, there is a lot of wrongdoing here. A summary judgment on 2 of 5 issues is hardly a "win" or a "clean slate" or "proof Aspen provides licensed therapists" - Aspen should be facing criminal charges for their actions. Getting sued is getting off light.
Great point!! What was proved is that Aspen provides no therapy by licensed providers and uses unlicensed people off the street to conduct "therapy groups" and "individual counseling" which is highly illegal.
-
Darn, The US District Court Disagrees with you again:
Take a look (http://http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/6:05-cv-06199-80-DOR.pdf)
So all parties agreed that Aspen Education group provided a licensed therapist for Matthew Pence during his stay at NorthStar.
The parties seem to agree that ...... one member of Matthew Pence's "treatment team" was a licenced therapist.
What was Matthews lawyer thinking going to trial? They got killed on this one.
Where do you read that "they got killed on this one," Whooter?
Claims still continued to trial:
III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx
IV. Fourth Claim - Breach of Confidential Relationship
V. Fifth Claim - Punitive Damages[/list]
-
Exactly, there is a lot of wrongdoing here. A summary judgment on 2 of 5 issues is hardly a "win" or a "clean slate" or "proof Aspen provides licensed therapists" - Aspen should be facing criminal charges for their actions. Getting sued is getting off light.
Great point!! What was proved is that Aspen provides no therapy by licensed providers and uses unlicensed people off the street to conduct "therapy groups" and "individual counseling" which is highly illegal.
The salient point is that ASPEN's "win" was based in how they "never promised" to provide medical care, as defined by any legal standard.
The salient point is that its DEFENSE of its actions was that it is not a "therapeutic treatment program," that the "program" itself (progression through the "phases") is not in anyway therapeutic, and that the person that oversaw and offered what the Pence's thought to be "treatment" was in no way a medical personnel and was, in fact, not offering actual treatment.
III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx
Expert witnesses disagree as to whether Matthew Pence's list of confessions was part of a therapeutic treatment program, whether NorthStar is a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program, and whether NorthStar personnel violated a standard of care applicable to counselors and therapists. See Dr. Larsen's Aff. (for defendants), Dr. Huffine's Aff. (for plaintiffs). Disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Matthew Pence or defendants on the third claim for negligent provision of mental health treatment.
Larsen (aspen's expert) is arguing that Matthew Pence's list of confessions was NOT part of a therapeutic treatment program, and that NorthStar is NOT a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program.
-
Yes, but 90 - 95% of the kids that finish the program do really well. When you look at the success who cares if they call it medical treatment or therapy?
I heard they are looking to expand some of the facilities and add some more beds
-
There is no evidence whatsoever that 90 to 95% meet with success. Not even 90% graduate the program. You can fabricate statistics like that all you want, but nobody is buying it. There is a reason the survey they did was so limited in scope. Contacting more families would have produced results they wouldn't dare publish. Also by limited it to one year after leaving, they avoid contacting those who might actually be adults now and living on their own. Those who would not face being forced to return. What ages were the people surveyed? There's a reason the group was small and limited in scope, why it was only out to one year. Not because they didn't have contact information, but clearly because with a complete picture, and with a fully independent survey, the numbers would have been too revealing.
Just as we now learn that they treated nobody and offered no counseling. No drug treatment. If they offered nothing to begin with, success should be 100%. You can't possibly fail if your goal is to do nothing.
-
Just as we now learn that they treated nobody and offered no counseling. No drug treatment. If they offered nothing to begin with, success should be 100%. You can't possibly fail if your goal is to do nothing.
Well, dont think I agree. Not providing drug treatment or individual counseling doesnt mean they dont have a goal in mind. Providing a safe and structured enviornment may be enough to get these 90 - 95% of the kids back on the right track. I dont think parents really care what the model entails as long as their kids are kept safe and placed on a healthy track. If this involves treatment or therapy fine, send me the bill, if not that is okay too.
Bottom line is the independent studies show that the schools are highly effective and will only continue to get better over time and they fine tune the process.
-
There is no evidence whatsoever that 90 to 95% meet with success. Not even 90% graduate the program. You can fabricate statistics like that all you want, but nobody is buying it. There is a reason the survey they did was so limited in scope. Contacting more families would have produced results they wouldn't dare publish. Also by limited it to one year after leaving, they avoid contacting those who might actually be adults now and living on their own. Those who would not face being forced to return. What ages were the people surveyed? There's a reason the group was small and limited in scope, why it was only out to one year. Not because they didn't have contact information, but clearly because with a complete picture, and with a fully independent survey, the numbers would have been too revealing.
Actually contacting more families would have worked in Aspens favor. The more families you have the less variability there is in the data and the higher the confidence becomes with the outcome.
As far as the time frame of the study goes, no matter what time frame is chosen some people would have a problem with it. If they did a study and said we contacted people 15 – 25 years after they left the program and 95% are doing great. They have jobs and grand children and are off of drugs. We would have an uproar saying “this is due to natural maturation and the program cannot take credit for their success!! What a bogus study!! What we want to know is how they made out after they left the program!!"
I think choosing the first year or 2 after graduation shows if the program was able to make an effect or not after the child leaves and whether the child continues to do well or goes back to their old ways. It is a critical time to measure in my opinion. As a parent it is the data I would want not 10 years down the road.
-
The salient point is that ASPEN's "win" was based in how they "never promised" to provide medical care, as defined by any legal standard.
The salient point is that its DEFENSE of its actions was that it is not a "therapeutic treatment program," that the "program" itself (progression through the "phases") is not in anyway therapeutic, and that the "counselor, Harless, that oversaw and offered the Pence's "treatment" was in no way a medical personnel and was, in fact, not offering actual treatment.
III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx
Expert witnesses disagree as to whether Matthew Pence's list of confessions was part of a therapeutic treatment program, whether NorthStar is a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program, and whether NorthStar personnel violated a standard of care applicable to counselors and therapists. See Dr. Larsen's Aff. (for defendants), Dr. Huffine's Aff. (for plaintiffs). Disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Matthew Pence or defendants on the third claim for negligent provision of mental health treatment.
Larsen (aspen's expert) is arguing that Matthew Pence's list of confessions was NOT part of a therapeutic treatment program, and that NorthStar is NOT a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program.
-
The salient point is that its DEFENSE of its actions was that it is not a "therapeutic treatment program," that the "program" itself (progression through the "phases") is not in anyway therapeutic, and that the "counselor, Harless, that oversaw and offered the Pence's "treatment" was in no way a medical personnel and was, in fact, not offering actual treatment.
Harless was the director not a therapist. She doesnt perform therapy. She flys around the country attending meetings. When she cought Matthew breaking into the offices she called the police and had him arrested. Any of us would have done that if it were your office. The kid deserved to go to jail. Harless wasnt held under HIPAA laws because she told the police he was breaking into offices. Plus Matthew admitted it himself to the police in front of the staff.
I dont blame Aspen for refusing to take him back into one of their programs. The kid screwed up and parents are out some cash.
-
You seem to focus on the part of the story nobody else cares about. The fact he got caught and went to jail. I think most adults here feel what he did was typical teen behavior, and right or wrong was not some huge deal. The subject is whether Aspen advertises or suggests that they provide therapy and treatment in their brochures, their talks with parents or through their paid "consultants" which would be in direct opposition to what they have recently claimed in court, that they offer and have never suggested they offer treatment or therapy.
But you just keep whacking away at the minutiae. Seems to be working for you.
-
You seem to focus on the part of the story nobody else cares about. The fact he got caught and went to jail. I think most adults here feel what he did was typical teen behavior, and right or wrong was not some huge deal. The subject is whether Aspen advertises or suggests that they provide therapy and treatment in their brochures, their talks with parents or through their paid "consultants" which would be in direct opposition to what they have recently claimed in court, that they offer and have never suggested they offer treatment or therapy.
But you just keep whacking away at the minutiae. Seems to be working for you.
Someone else mentioned they said that too, but I never saw a link or quote. Do you have one. I would like to see it. I have seen where they advertise helping kids through various problems but I didnt see where they said they dont provide therapy. Are they refering to Aspen as a whole or North Star?
-
The salient point is that its DEFENSE of its actions was that it is not a "therapeutic treatment program," that the "program" itself (progression through the "phases") is not in anyway therapeutic, and that the "counselor, Harless, that oversaw and offered the Pence's "treatment" was in no way a medical personnel and was, in fact, not offering actual treatment.
Harless was the director not a therapist. She doesnt perform therapy. She flys around the country attending meetings. When she cought Matthew breaking into the offices she called the police and had him arrested. Any of us would have done that if it were your office. The kid deserved to go to jail. Harless wasnt held under HIPAA laws because she told the police he was breaking into offices. Plus Matthew admitted it himself to the police in front of the staff.
I dont blame Aspen for refusing to take him back into one of their programs. The kid screwed up and parents are out some cash.
John D Reuben killed his kid and wont stop lying
Mathew was not ‘caught’ doing anything, as you know, like you know your kid is dead.
Mathew confessed a “negative contract” to Harless as he was obligated to under Aspen Education Group’s “phase” system.
If Harless was just some administrator she should not have been taking “confessions” in a capacity of 'treatment staff'.
Aspen Education Group was NOT cleared at the time of this judgment of violating HIPPA., only breach of the confidential therapist / patient relationship (because Harless was neither employed by a therapist or a therapist.)
Any drug or mental disorder treatment center is covered by HIPPA, as is ALL info gathered by its employees.
Hence, Aspen Education Group argues that it is NOT a drug or mental disorder treatment center, that its phase system which involves "confessions" to, and in the presence of, a variety of unlicensed therapists is NOT therapeutic, and the info Harless was charged with collecting from Mathew was not taken under a therapeutic process.
III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx
Expert witnesses disagree as to whether Matthew Pence's list of confessions was part of a therapeutic treatment program,whether NorthStar is a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program, and whether NorthStar personnel violated a standard of care applicable to counselors and therapists. See Dr. Larsen's Aff. (for defendants), Dr. Huffine's Aff. (for plaintiffs). Disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Matthew Pence or defendants on the third claim for negligent provision of mental health treatment.