Pence v. Aspen Education Group, Inc.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Whooter]

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

[RMA Survivor]

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.

[Whooter]

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.

[Whooter]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Whooter]

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.

[RMA Survivor]

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.

[Whooter]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.