Michigan Working to Pull Convicted Rapist's License to Practice as a Psychologist

By Michael Klazema on 5/29/2015

In 2008, Michigan began running background checks on individuals applying for psychologist licenses in the state. Since then, it's become significantly more difficult for convicted criminals, sexual predators, and other dangerous people to become licensed to practice as a psychologist in the state. But what about the psychologists who were already licensed to practice before the new law was put into effect? According to a report from the Detroit Free Press, at least one such threat went overlooked for many years. The threat in question is a man who has held a limited psychologist's license in Michigan since 1993. Reportedly, his license is limited in Michigan because he primarily practices in Indiana. However, he has worked in Michigan in the past, and allegedly lied on his 1993 application in order to obtain a license in the state.

The man, who has been licensed in Indiana since the early 90s, both as a social worker and a marriage and family therapist, has a number of serious criminal convictions on his record. The entries on his criminal record, which include two rape convictions, an armed robbery conviction, and a number of burglary and attempted burglary convictions, date back exclusively to 1973 and 1974. All of these convictions were filed in Wisconsin, where he used to reside. He spent 15 years in prison following his second rape conviction.

However, despite the numerous felony infractions, the man was able to obtain psychologist licenses in both Indiana and Michigan. Per the Detroit Free Press, he avoided detection by lying and committing fraud on his 1993 license to practice in Michigan, answering no to the "have you ever been convicted of a crime" question, and using a false birth date and social security number.

It's bad enough that this man could become licensed to practice as a psychologist, therapist, and social worker in two different states. Even worse, the Detroit Free Press claims that he served as the President of the National Association of Forensic Counselors for a period of time. That association, which is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, reportedly gave this repeat rapist a chance to "offer training and certification to sex offender counselors around the country."

The good news is that Michigan is taking steps to rectify the issue and invalidate the man's license to practice in the state. The state's Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs filed a complaint in early May, citing fraud, deceit, and "lack of good moral character" as a reason to strip the psychologist of his license. The man will have 30 days to respond to the complaint, either in writing or by requesting a hearing. If he fails to respond, the issue will be forwarded to Michigan Board of Psychology, which will likely strip him of his license.

There's no sense in talking about whether or not Michigan should have been running background checks on psychologist license applicants back in 1993. What should be discussed, though, is the state's process for updating or renewing licenses to practice psychology in the state. After Michigan added background checks for psychologist licenses in 1998, why were existing practitioners not required to renew their licenses and undergo screening? Such a move might have helped to root out existing threats in the system, and would have likely gotten this particular therapist out of a patient-serving industry seven years earlier.

Industry News

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.