Friday, April 3, 2009

Letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners

Here's a copy of my April 2, 2009 letter to the Board:

April 2, 2009

Re: Request to address the Board/Additional information for March 17, 2009 Complaint

Dear Mr. Brengelman and Members of the Board,

I would like the opportunity to address the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology at the Board’s April 13 meeting.  I’d like to get an understanding of the procedures and guidelines that the Board follows regarding the complaint process. 

On December 9, 2008, I received a letter from the Board stating:

“A copy of your complaint will be forwarded to Dr. Connor.  He will be given fifteen (15) business days in which to respond to the complaint.  Once this complaint is received, the complaint and the response will be reviewed by the Complaints Screening Committee of the Board and placed on the agenda for the next scheduled Board meeting.”

On February 5, 2009 I received a letter from the Board stating the facts alleged in my complaint do not constitute an apparent violation of the law governing psychology.  In Mr. Brengelman’s letter dated February 23, 2009, Mr. Brengelman stated:

“Please also be advised that your request to the Board for reconsideration of its dismissal of your initiating complaint in Agency Case No. 08-15 will be reviewed by the Board at its March 2009 meeting.”

In a letter dated March 6, 2009, the Board stated:

“The Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology has reviewed the supplemental information that you filed with the Board dated February 17, 2009 by initiating complaint, regarding a Kentucky psychologist, Ed Connor at the Board’s last regularly scheduled meeting on March, 2009.  As you know, the Board has already reviewed an initiating complaint from you about the matter as well as a written response from the psychologist.  Based on these two documents, the Board had already decided to close the matter without further action being taken, and you were notified by the Board in writing of this dismissal.

The Board reviewed your new initiating complaint to determine whether any new factual information was presented that would warrant reopening the matter.”

“After careful consideration of the concerns raised in your initiating complaint received February 24, 2009 (actually stamped February 20, 2009), the Board concluded that the facts as you alleged in this matter did not raise any new issues not already considered by the Board.”

The Board’s online complaint EForm states that complaints will be acknowledged immediately by letter and a copy of the complaint will be sent to the psychologist for a response.  The Board’s March 6, 2009 letter refers to my February 17, 2009 correspondence as a new “initiating complaint” on three different occasions.  The Board stated that my new initiating complaint didn’t raise any new issues not already considered by the Board.  My February 17, 2009 letter included a copy of notes that had been altered by Dr. Connor.  These altered notes had never been presented to the Board prior to my February 17, 2009 letter yet during the March 2, 2009 Board meeting, the complaint screening committee reported that there was no new evidence regarding the matter and recommended not to reopen the case.  If the new initiating complaint was handled in a manner consistent with the procedures described in the online EForm, then a copy of my letter and the altered health record should have been sent to Dr. Connor for a response.  If the Board followed the complaint procedures as stated in KAR 201 26:130, the Board would first determine if the initiating complaint warranted an investigation and then the Board would contact the psychologist to inform them of the pending investigation.   This was not the procedure the Board used in dealing with my first initiating complaint dated November 18, 2008.  I presented the Board with altered records from Dr. Connor’s office.  The Board could only dismiss my complaint/evidence if the Board received, at the very least, an explanation from Dr. Connor as to why the records were altered.  A dismissal of the evidence based on any Board member’s perception of me or my complaint would be unethical and/or illegal as none of the members of the Board could render a decision on the complaint based on their opinions of me as I have not met with any of the Board members at a professional level.  Even if that were the case, the Board members would have to recuse themselves from this matter if they had any kind of personal/professional relationship with me.

Dr. Connor stated on page 3 of his response to initiating complaint 08-15 that, during the evaluation process, Dr. Connor consulted with two professional peers experienced with ADHD treatment.  Though Dr. Connor claimed he consulted with these peers “while protecting Mr. Brewington’s confidentiality”, this does not relieve the professional peers of their right to cross-examination as stated in KRS 403.300 as it relates to the investigation of child custody arrangements.  On March 9, 2009 I sent a letter to Dr. Connor requesting the names of these professional peers.  As of this date, Dr. Connor has failed to respond.  In reviewing Dr. Connor’s consistency in providing the Board with false information, it should be questioned if Dr. Connor really did consult with other “professional peers” regarding ADHD.  Dr. Connor’s admission that he had to consult “professional peers” experienced in treating people with ADHD would also be an admission that Dr. Connor may not have had the necessary experience and training to administer psychological testing to and evaluate someone with ADHD.  Since Dr. Connor has failed to provide me with the names of these “professional peers” in accordance with KRS 403.300, the Board should consider the information regarding the two “professional peers” to be fictitious until these “professional peers” can be properly deposed and subjected to cross-examination.

In the Board’s December 9, 2009 letter to Dr. Connor, the Board states “it may be to your advantage to respond to the complaint in as full and complete manner as possible.”  The Board’s 2004 Summer Newsletter reads:


News that a complaint has been initiated against you is anxiety provoking. It can trigger panic, fear of the worst happening, and anger. It may be reassuring to know that almost half of all complaints made against psychology credential holders in Kentucky are ultimately dismissed. Should you become the object of a complaint, the Board offers the following advice:

? Do not panic or become defensive or haughty. Act professionally.

? Be open and candid in your response to the complaint, even if it means admitting you made a mistake.

? Read the relevant regulation carefully and frame your response accordingly.

? Respond to a complaint thoroughly and carefully, addressing each point raised by the person complaining.

? Organize your response in a concise and readable form.

? Substantiate your points with supporting documentation.

? Before responding to the complaint, consider consulting with an attorney familiar with licensing boards.

Dr. Connor’s response to Agency Case No. 08-15 consisted of 54 pages.  Dr. Connor provided many pages of evidence to the Board to help demonstrate that he believes that I have victimized him in some way for trying to obtain a copy of the case file, which Dr. Connor said I was entitled to on several different occasions. Of the 54 pages of Dr. Connor’s response, 7 pages consisted of Dr. Connor’s written response where Dr. Connor willfully provided the Board with false information, as has been documented in my March 17, 2009 initiating complaint.  The rest of the documentation breaks down as follows:

  • Dr. Connor included a copy of my January 15, 2009 letter and a copy of the Board’s Spring 2006 Newsletter to support Dr. Connor’s January 16, 2009 letter that states “(Mr. Brewington’s) letter provides further indication of his inability to comprehend the basic concept of confidentiality that prevents me from releasing his wife’s records to him.  It is further indicative of his tendency to misconstrue and/or distort information to suit his personal agenda.”
  • Dr. Connor provided Attachment A to demonstrate that he based some of his recommendations and diagnosis of my ADHD on one paragraph of a 12 page letter written in November of 2006.  Dr. Connor failed to request and/or review my mental health records.  [Note: Dr. Connor stated in the evaluation that he found my letters to be confusing and hard to follow but failed to provide the Board with evidence of this.]
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachment B is a release of information from The Affinity Center and a letter I wrote to my treating therapist stating that Dr. Connor wanted a faxed paragraph regarding my treatment.  Dr. Connor provided this information while stating that he actually requested a copy of my mental health records.  In the evaluation Dr. Connor stated that he reviewed the mother’s mental health file from two therapists while he stated that he only requested a summary letter of treatment from The Affinity Center from me.
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachment D is evidence that he initiated ex-parte communication in his March 26, 2008 letter to the Judge in the divorce and requested that the Judge make a ruling outside the presence of the parties.
  •  Dr. Connor’s Attachment E is the Judge’s March 26, 2008 letter that verifies that there are no protective orders prohibiting Dr. Connor from releasing the custody evaluation case file to me.
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachment F is a copy of the April 16, 2008 addendum to the custody evaluation.  Dr. Connor scheduled the additional sessions for this addendum because the original evaluation contained “numerous errors and oversights.”  Dr. Connor also demonstrated how he discriminated against me when he wrote “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates that we would provide the file to the representing attorney’s; however, given the circumstances, we believe that a Court order is necessary to release the file to Mr. Brewington, given that he is representing himself pro se.” 
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachment G is the Court’s July 21, 2008 order that further demonstrates that the Court didn’t issue a protective order prohibiting Dr. Connor from releasing the case file.
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachment H is Dr. Connor’s letter stating “Without (the mother’s) consent or a Court order from (the Judge) I am prohibited from releasing the confidential information contained within the file per state and HIPAA laws and regulations.”  In Dr. Connor’s Attachment F (above) Dr. Connor stated that the only reason he wouldn’t release the file to me was because I wasn’t an attorney.  Dr. Connor also sent a copy of this letter to the Judge and opposing counsel which violates psychologist/client confidentiality or Dr. Connor failed to fairly provide me with copies of the correspondence he had with opposing counsel.
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachment I is a letter from my treating therapist at The Affinity Center where my therapist wrote “In general, I have read this report several times and I find much of it confusing because of extraneous information.  Comments about the cost of Ritalin, potential safety hazards around your home without evidence of neglect, repeated reports about your diagnosis and incorrect information about current treatment standards for ADD all lead the reader to further confusion and distraction from the purpose of the evaluation.” 
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachment J consists of 18 pages from my website  which has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the complaint against him.  Instead of providing the Board with evidence or documentation to disprove the allegations against him, Dr. Connor dedicates several pages of his written response trying to portray himself as a victim.
  • Dr. Connor’s Attachments K-L are copies of internet business listing review sites where I left less than favorable reviews of Dr. Connor.  Dr. Connor wrote “Mr. Brewington has posted comments on at least two additional Internet sites in which he falsely accuses me of being a ‘very dangerous man who abuses his power’ and a ‘criminal’.”  Dr. Connor intentionally misleading a State Psychology Board by portraying the victim of Dr. Connor’s actions to be “potentially dangerous” in an effort to get out of trouble would be considered a crime committed by a very dangerous man who abuses his power.
  • Dr. Connor’s unmarked attachments include a copy of an email I sent Ms. Jackson on December 16, 2008 and a copy of the Court order dated December 5, 2008.  I am unaware of how Dr. Connor received a copy of this information.  I requested a copy of all correspondence that the Board had with Dr. Connor yet I didn’t receive a letter that would have accompanied this information if it was sent to Dr. Connor.

Members of the Board and Mark Brengelman, I would hope that you would see the incredible lengths that Dr. Connor has gone to in an attempt to bring harm to a family.  Most or all of Dr. Connor’s 54 page response contains irrelevant or false information.  I would also hope that the Board understands that I will take every legal measure possible to prevent Dr. Connor from bringing further harm to my family.  I will also hold any attorney, judge, board member, or individual(s) who appeared to have “protected” or “enabled” Dr. Connor responsible for any damages suffered by my family.  As the Board has voted not to take action against Dr. Connor on two different occasions, it may appear that the Board has a vested interest in keeping Dr. Connor safe from disciplinary action.  If the Board still doesn’t feel that Dr. Connor willfully providing false information in a response to an initiating complaint is an “apparent violation” of KRS 319.082, then I would hope the Board would be able to provide the statutes and/or declaratory rulings which condone this type of behavior.  If Dr. Connor would have done his job this wouldn’t have been an issue.  Please add this letter to my March 17, 2008 complaint.  A copy of this letter can be found at 


Daniel P. Brewington

No comments:

Post a Comment