CLARIFICATION OF EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH BOARD ACTION OF

      SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 PERTAINING TO GLENN ZAEPFEL, PH.D.

 

This information is intended to clarify the Board action of September 21, 2001 pertaining to Glenn Zaepfel, Ph.D. and related events. The original Board document was signed with an asterisk noting that this additional information (now amended for readability) was to be considered as part of the agreement, and was important in consideration of the overall events.  However, it was not included hence this clarification for the record. The supplemental information (designated by an asterisk with attachment on the original agreement) by the Board was not included in the public posting – nor was the information subsequently posted that the psychologist was in good standing as the Board has subsequently explained.

 

The addendum explained apparent discrepancies in a larger context (e.g., the psychologist never did enter into any formal agreement as stated in the Board statement but, rather, an exploratory role to investigate a potential agreement as further explained below.  That agreement, itself, was not to be with the complainant or the husband of the complainant but with a medical group in a different part of the state.)

 

It must be understood by the public that, in essence, the Board acts functionally as though the psychologist is proven guilty unless otherwise shown to be innocent. This explanation could likely be resisted but it must be pointed out that the Board exists to protect the public – not the psychologist. In all fairness there is an initial investigation wherein a groundless complaint may be discarded fairly quickly. And, for the most part, the Board historically does a good job with most all its disciplinary actions.  However, there are a number of other factors that may prolong and/or trigger a more reactive, and at times imprudent or incomplete but necessary, response.

 

This document should clarify the event that centered around the issue of a possible dual relationship with a client. In this particular case the actual complainant had dropped out of therapy the previous year, and the complaint actually was about the client’s husband (who did not file a complaint.)  For the informed reader a flag may go up upon realization that the actual person filing the complaint stopped treatment the previous year and all contact had ended at that time. For the lay reader it should also be noted that no more grievous complaint was presented other than an alleged dual relationship as addressed herein. The complaint consisted of a possible dual relationship with the husband of the complainant. (The husband did not file a complaint.) There could be no substantive dual relationship with the complainant since the actual professional relationship (and all other contact) ended the previous year.

 

The psychologist’s response was in essence that he may have conceivably but innocently committed an unrecognized or misunderstood infraction based upon inaccuracy, deception, falsehoods, threat of harm and other reasons from the complainant or, more particularly, complainant’s spouse relying on incorrect information about the potential relationship. The counter argument, resisted by the Board, was that the so -called dual relationship did not apply to the complainant, and that had the complainant’s spouse been more forthright and above-board, the event would have been avoided altogether. It was assumed by the psychologist that the relationship under consideration was with a medical group outside the profession and practice of the complainant’s spouse.  The actual exploratory relationship consisted between that medical group and the psychologist.  There was never any exchange of moneys or income derived from the potential professional relationship. There was never any clinical involvement beyond that necessary to consider treatment of patients, and the general approach to treatment for a highly specialized population.  The psychologist did not work clinically or professionally with the complainant’s husband but, rather, with a group of physicians in clinical practice (of which the complainant’s husband is not learned, participative, practiced, credentialed, or otherwise recognized as being a part of that clinical practice.)

 

The complainant’s husband threatened to have his wife file an ethics complaint, as was subsequently done, (only) if the complainant refused to cooperate with him by continuing to pursue a clinical relationship with that medical practice and by not divulging specific information about him personally, clinically, legally and professionally (feared discovered through initial association with the medical group). The psychologist felt strongly that he could not continue to pursue any relationship with that group.

 

In review, there could be no relationship with that particular party (complainant and/or husband) – only talk of a possible relationship with another professional practice. The complainant’s husband was attempting to introduce the parties for further consideration of their potential usefulness to one another. When the psychologist eventually discovered a potential conflict of interest and other questionable activity, he withdrew from the situation only to receive threats from the complainant’s spouse including having the complainant file an official complaint that would serve a number of purposes  - all to the advantage of the complainant’s spouse while discrediting any potential statement about the complainant’s spouse or business practices. 

 

Let the informed reader exercise wisdom as these documents hopefully provide greater context and explanation to the above disciplinary action. It must also be kept in context that this situation was just one case among literally thousands of cases (40-50 cases/sessions per week since 1985) that were successful without incident.  Another way of addressing the same issue is that this psychologist had one complaint from among approximately 40,000 sessions. (Statistically, assuming the charges had any merit, which is still a one in 40,000 or .00002 chance of occurrence just through the year 2001.  It could be argued that this risk seems likely fairly good odds for any kind of medical or psychological intervention.)

 

It should further be noted that the psychologist reluctantly consented to the agreement believing all of these factors would be presented as part of the psychologist’s agreement in the disciplinary action (which consisted of a small fine and participation in ethics seminars). It must also be noted that the ethics laws pertaining to a dual relationship drastically changed at about the same time the complaint was filed.  (Believe it or not) a psychologist may now have a sexual relationship with a former client after two years within ethical guidelines wherein previously no dual relationship of any kind was permitted.  The previous concept of dual relationship, itself, was not unanimously or clearly defined and the reader can imagine just how difficult some form of dual relationship would be to escape – especially in smaller communities (e.g., same church, PTA, sports league, civics organization, etc.)  Such interpretations were left largely to the perspective of individuals and individual boards.

 

These comments are offered solely as a means to provide context originally believed to be a part of the agreement and public statement concerning these actions.