August 10, 2009
Re: Agency Case No: 08-15 against Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy D
Dear Richard Applegate Ph.D.; Eva R. Markham; Thomas W. Miller Ph.D; Dennis Buchholz Ph.D.; Danette Morton-Page M.A.; Nancy Gordon Moore Ph.D; Barbara Kay Jefferson Ph.D; S. Abby Shapiro Ph.D.; William G. Elder Jr. Ph.D.; Julie Jackson Board Administrator
Please see the enclosed letter to the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology dated August 10, 2009. I was a participant in a child custody evaluation conducted by Dr. Edward J. Connor Psy. D. of Connor and Associates in Erlanger, Kentucky. Dr. Connor conducted interviews, psychological testing and reviewed information before releasing his August 29, 2007 evaluation report. In a letter dated February 21, 2008, Dr. Connor stated that the original evaluation report contained “numerous errors and oversights” and offered additional sessions to correct the errors, at the expense of the clients. When I requested a copy of the case file from the evaluation, in accordance with KRS 403.300, Dr. Connor gave a plethora of excuses as to why he would not release the case file to me. The Board is in possession of Dr. Connor’s April 16, 2008 addendum to Dr. Connor’s August 29, 2007 evaluation report. Dr. Connor’s addendum states “Mr. Brewington is correct in stating that our contract indicates we would provide the file to the representing attorney, 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.” This evaluation was part of an agreed order in a divorce and the parties signed a consent and release form at the beginning of the evaluation. There were no protective orders filed by the Court and Dr. Connor has failed to provide a medical reason from a medical doctor as to how the release of the record could cause physical harm to anyone.
This just scratches the surface of the allegations raised in my complaints and the documentation that I have provided the Board yet it seems to be the most fundamental violation of law. I signed an agreement that stated that I was entitled to the case file. Dr. Connor confirmed this in his April 16, 2008 addendum but decided to discriminate against me by not releasing the file because I was representing myself. As a psychologist, law requires Dr. Connor, to maintain health records for evaluations. As a client, I am legally entitled to inspect my own record. Dr. Connor denied me the right to access my own client health record. Dr. Connor actions in denying my access to my own health record eliminates any future employment opportunities that require background checks that include the inspection of health records.
I understand that some members of the Board are not aware of the specific issues in a complaint reviewed by the Complaints Screening Committee, however; the individual Board members are responsible for their votes. If it were a violation of KRS 319.082 for a psychologist to deny a client’s access to the client’s own record, then I would assume you would take the appropriate action against the Board members who are aware of Dr. Connor’s misconduct.
I want to stress that I am a loving father that is trying to understand how a psychologist can admit to filing a custody evaluation report that contains “numerous errors and oversights” and then deny one of the parents involved, access to the case file of the erroneous evaluation because the parent was representing himself in a divorce proceeding. If Dr. Connor exercised undue influence to obstruct my access to the case file in an effort to prevent self-incrimination, then it would be a violation of KRS 319.082 1(q).
I trust the Board will review the situation and reconsider the Board’s opinion on the matter or provide me with the Kentucky statute or declaratory ruling explaining how a psychologist that conducts child custody evaluations is exempt from the rules pertaining to a client’s right to inspect the client’s own health record.
Daniel P. Brewington
It is a violation of law to obstruct the delivery of US mail. If the person in possession of this letter is not the addressee listed above, please promptly forward the letter to the correct recipient listed above.
 KRS 319.082 states that the Board may impose disciplinary action if the credential holder grossly overcharged for professional services. Dr. Connor stated the charges for the additional evaluation sessions for correcting the “numerous errors and oversights” in the original evaluation were $350 per person.