MATTHEW E. PENCE, et al., Civ. No. 05-6199-HO
Plaintiffs, ORDER
v.
ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP., INC.,
Defendants.
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).
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.
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/
s/ Michael R. Hogan
United States District Judge
Aspen Education Group does not provide a therapeutic milieu that is conformative to standards set by any medical body for their "patients," medically recognized therapy, or medically accredited personnel, Aspen's own lawyers successfully argued in Pence v. Aspen Education Group.
http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/6:05-cv ... 80-DOR.pdf
Aspen education group turned the details of one of the confessions it mandates from its "patients" over to the police.
The "patient" had confessed he had peeped into the girls dorm, after climbing onto a roof.
The "patient's" parents sued over Aspens failure to provide a clinically valid therapeutic milieu, for failing to conform to clinical, medical standards, for violating the confidentiality of the patient/ therapist relationship, and for subjecting their "patient" to "therapy" from a group of people who were not licensed therapists or medical personnel.
Aspen Education Group's defense was that, yes, they failed to provide therapy that conforms to standards of medicine, but that was OK because they ONLY agreed to provide...
Aspen Education Group wrote: "group and individual counseling as dictated by
PROGRAM design......NorthStar did not promise to do the things that plaintiffs
complain they failed to do, such as provide counseling by a
LICENSED counselor,2"
Aspen education Group argued that confessions the "patient" was expected to make was NOT part of a therapeutic treatment program, and that NorthStar was NOT a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program.
Aspen Education Group argued largely SUCCESSFULLY that because their "patient's" therapist was unlicensed and semi-successfully that because their employees were not actual medical personnel, HiPPA statues did not apply to them.
Pence v Aspen Education Group wrote: "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."
Pence v Aspen Education Group wrote:"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."
This judgment is dated 2006. Does anybody know how the rest of the case turned out?
Anybody, other than a guest posting troll-bag called whooter.
