Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Aspen Education Group lawyers..AEG not mental health program
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
Clinical -- Involving or based on direct observation of the patient
--- End quote ---
Wait - you mean "student", don't you? You need to read what Aspen's lawyers said again. No kid in an Aspen program can be called a "patient", now can they? So your definition of clinical was taken from a source describing legitimate health care, not a school like Aspen.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, Whooter. No way around AEG's confession that they provide no treatment or therapy. We don't need you to speak for them anymore. They've finally spoken and admitted that they and you have been lying for years. You're dismissed.
--- End quote ---
Awww, a little upset that their outcome study didnt line up with your expectations? Maybe you can write to Aspen and ask them to put a disclaimer that they dont provide treatment or therapy. Would this make you feel better (I never guest post RB)? Ha,Ha,Ha
Let me know how that works out for ya.
psy:
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---Patient -- the recipient of any of various personal services.
--- End quote ---
I posted this in the other thread but felt it appropriate to repeat in light of the absurdity of the above:
--- Quote ---LOL. They are what they want to be when they want to be. They want the marketing benefits of appearing legit with none of the accountability. Same deal with benchmark choosing to call itself either a school or a program depending on which licensing agency they're talking to.
Program -> dept of education "we're not really a school. we teach 'life skills' to troubled teens. we're a program."
Program -> program licensing "we're not a program. We're a school and are thus aren't required to be licensed. We teach kids valuable life skills."
--- End quote ---
Patients are "recipients of any various personal services"?!?!? WTF? What dictionary did you pull that out of? My dictionary says "a person receiving or registered to receive medical treatment"
You can't just redefine words to mean what you want them to. If you advertise X you deliver X or it's fraudulent misrepresentation / false advertising. You can't just say "at our business, X is another word for Y". It's bullshit.
Even in the rare instances where Aspen avoids advertising blatantly to provide medical services it is VERY clear to a parent or just about anybody that it is what they are offering (a program providing treatment for psychological(medical) conditions). It's in their advertising. Look at what they advertise to and the keywords in their advertising. They advertise to help kids with medical conditions.
RMA Survivor:
Not just medical conditions, but pretty much all medical conditions. When they talk to parents they are so certain they can cure whatever the problems of the child are, despite having never met the child or conducted any testing or evaluation of the child in person to know what the problems of the child actually are, that should be a crime. And that is where criminal charges should be filed. When Aspen or any other program tells parents over the phone or internet that they have the cure for actual medical conditions, such as something as common as depression, despite not actually providing treatment, that should be a crime on top of false advertising.
But I agree with an earlier poster that this thread and the information about Aspen's legal position, should be top of the list for this site. Everyone who logs in should see it at the top.
RMA Survivor:
Some more flaws with that study. Many teens who had left the program would have a vested interest in lying about their progress so as not to be sent back. Additionally, they would also want to avoid telling their parents they had wasted their money and that they were the same or worse than before.
Also, how did the study determine the stress and anxiety levels of those in the study? Did they just ask them? "So, how stressed are you feeling right now on a scale of one to one hundred about being sent to the middle of nowhere, against your will to a strange place you know nothing about surrounded by people you have never met and are about to be forced to live in a cramped dormitory with?" Umm...90?
One year later... "How stressed do you feel now, compared to when you first arrived now that you know where you are, who everyone here is, and have had a chance to settle in?" Umm... zero? "Let's go with fifty, since we want the graph to look like it drops evenly since nobody would believe we cured you so quickly and besides, as soon as we say you are cured, though we don't claim to be actually treating you, your parents will pull you and stop paying us, so how does fifty sound?" Umm... yes, a fifty sounds much better.
Anonymous:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version