Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group

Aspen Educaton Group lawyers..not a theraputic program.

(1/3) > >>

Anonymous:
Aspen Education Group does not provide a therapeutic milieu that is conformative to  standards, provide medically recognized therapy, medically accredited personnel, or a treatment centers for mental disorder or drug abuse, 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...


--- Quote from: "Aspen Education Group" --- "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"
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: "Pence v Aspen Education Group" --- "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."
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: "Pence v Aspen Education Group" ---"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{because employees took HIPPA classes], and whether NorthStar is a covered entity within the meaning of HIPAA."
--- End quote ---

psy:
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 skills."

So many different fronts for the same sick entity.

RMA Survivor:
There has been a question lately on whether or not this court case is complete and it is clear from reading it that it what is available only entails a Summary Judgment on two counts, not all of the counts, thus the remaining counts have yet to be ruled upon.  

But one thing I did find odd was this "Contract" Matthew had to sign and agree to whereby he confesses.  If this kid if a minor, he cannot enter in to binding contracts anyway, and I am surprised this was even referenced in the case at all.  Unless he is not a minor.  

The case information posted clearly shows that plaintiff and defendants could not agree on many issues and that they would not be ruled upon in this Summary Judgment.  And one of those issues was whether unlicensed staff were performing treatment and whether this was a breach of contract?  I think Aspen was digging themselves in to a hole by trying to argue both ways and this created a serious dilemma for them.  They seemed to be saying no, we don't offer treatment, and we don't have a treatment program, but we do have licensed staff who do treat people, and sometimes that treatment is conducted by unlicensed staff, except when the unlicensed staff perform treatment it is no longer treatment because we don't offer that, so it isn't illegal.  

I think they are screwed.  Circle logic usually only works in certain circles.  Like with desperate, gullible parents and sock puppet posters on Fornits.  It is unlikely to work well in a court of law.

Whooter:
I think what they are saying is they have a therapeutic model that the kids work within and it is overseen by a licensed therapist.  They have unlicensed staff who work with these kids within the model design but the individual therapy is performed by a licensed therapist.
That is how I see it being done.

RMA Survivor:
As soon as the unlicensed staff engage in any form of therapy or counseling, even within a "model" as you suggest, it is illegal.  Now a staff member who is taking kids on hikes and teaching them how to put a pack on properly, how to rock climb as part of a wilderness program... these people would not need licenses.  But as soon as they open their mouths and try to offer therapeutic advice or mental health counseling, they are breaking the law.  Only that one trained therapist may perform these duties.  

A nurse can watch a doctor perform the same surgery day after day.  The moment that nurse attempts to perform the same procedure, they are breaking the law.
If the doctor tells the nurse how to perform the surgery, that is legal.  If the doctor allows the nurse to perform the surgery, they are both breaking the law.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page