UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
- 5/03/2019—FIVE YEARS PROBATION WITH VARIOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. RESTRICTIONS: NO SOLO PRACTICE OF MEDICINE; PROHIBITED FROM SUPERVISING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AND ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSES; AND PROHIBITED FROM (1) PRACTICING OR ATTEMPTING TO PRACTICE HYPNOTHERAPY OR HYPNOSIS IN ANY CAPACITY AND (2) TREATING PATIENTS WITH ANY HISTORY OF SEXUAL ABUSE.
- 5/08/2018—ACCUSATION FILED.
- 3/29/2018—INTERIM SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED-PARTIAL. DR. JOHNSON IS PROHIBITED FROM PRACTICING HYPNOTHERAPY OR HYPNOSIS IN ANY CAPACITY AND TREATING PATIENTS WITH ANY HISTORY OF SEXUAL ABUSE.
Excerpt from Stipulation and Partial Interim Suspension Order dated 3/26/2018:
6. Respondent stipulates and agrees that at a hearing on the petition, if contested, Petitioner could establish a factual basis for the issuance of an Interim Suspension Order. Respondent hereby stipulates and agrees that the Medical Quality Hearing Panel of the Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction and, without further proceedings, may issue an interim order which provides that Respondent shall be prohibited from (1) practicing or attempting to practice hypnotherapy or hypnosis in any capacity and (2) treating patients with any history of sexual abuse. Effective immediately, Respondent agrees to screen all prospective patients to determine if the patient has any history of sexual abuse for purpose of determining if the patient can be seen by Respondent. If the patient discloses any history of sexual abuse, Respondent must refer the patient to another provider. Respondent agrees to keep a written log of all prospective patient screening and to provide the Board with the written log upon request.
7. Respondent agrees to cooperate with the Board to verify compliance.
8. Respondent understands that the partial interim suspension order will remain in force and effect until such time as the Medical Board of California has issued and adopted a final decision on the Accusation to be filed in this matter pursuant to the provisions of Government Code sections 11503 and 11505.
Excerpt from Accusation dated 5/08/2018:
FACTS
8. At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent was a licensed psychiatrist employed at the Schuman-Liles Clinic in Fremont, California.
9. Respondent treated Patient A, a 28 year old female, between August 2014 and July 2015 for depression, anxiety, insomnia, and mood instability.
10. On August 26, 2014, Patient A was first seen by Respondent for various complaints, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, and panic attacks. Patient A disclosed childhood sexual abuse at this first visit. Patient A provided Respondent with the names of her current psychotherapist and past mental health provider.
11. Respondent diagnosed Patient A with Panic Disorder and Unspecified Mood Disorder. Respondent did not obtain any symptom history, information on the nature of concurrent psychotherapy, or any prior or concurrent treatment records to support his diagnoses.
12. Respondent did not diagnose complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
13. Patient A was seen next by Respondent on September 25, 2014. The medical notes for this visit are nearly identical to the August 26, 2014 medical notes with the same "cut and paste" grammar and spelling errors.
14. Respondent saw Patient A again on January 22, 2015, March 31, 2015 and finally on July 14, 2015: The medical notes for these visits again contain the same identical medical notes with the grammar and spelling errors contained in the first visit. Minimal new patient information was added to subsequent visits.
15. Respondent's treatment plan consisted solely of psychotropic medications as the intervention.
16. On July 14, 2015, Respondent performed hypnotherapy on Patient A to treat her PTSD. Respondent did not document a diagnosis of PTSD and his medical record contains no documentation to support this diagnosis.
17. Respondent did not document any medical notes pertaining to the hypnotherapy in Patient A's medical records at Schuman-Liles Clinic.
18. Respondent kept separate handwritten notes of his hypnotherapy session with Patient A. The handwritten notes were illegible and incoherent.
19. Respondent used a sexualized hypnotic script which utilized suggestive and sexual language during the July 14, 2015 hypnotherapy with Patient A. Respondent never took a meaningful history from Patient A that would indicate a need for sexualized hypnotherapy.
20. Patient A felt pressured by Respondent to agree to the hypnotherapy. The sexualized hypnotherapy caused Patient A significant anxiety and stress.
FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligence/Repeated Negligent Acts)
21. Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and subject to disciplinary action under section 2234 and/or 2234 subdivision (b) (gross negligence) and subdivision (c) (repeated negligent acts), of the Code in that Respondent engaged in the conduct described above including, but not limited to, the following:
A. Respondent failed to obtain a thorough history of Patient A to make a psychiatric diagnosis on which to base treatment.
B. Respondent claims he utilized psychotherapy to treat Patient A for PTSD even though he did not document a diagnosis of PTSD and his medical record contains no documentation to support this diagnosis.
C. Respondent failed to explain the risks and benefits of sexualized hypnotherapy to Patient A.
D. Respondent failed to obtain informed consent from Patient A to perform sexualized hypnotherapy.
E. Respondent did not provide Patient A with any information regarding his training, experience, or qualifications to perform hypnotherapy and/or sexualized hypnotherapy.
F. Respondent violated sexual boundaries in the manner in which he conducted the sexualized hypnotherapy.
G. Respondent failed to collaborate with Patient A's current psychotherapist before engaging in sexualized hypnotherapy.
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Inadequate Record Keeping)
22. Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and subject to disciplinary action under section 2266 (inadequate records) of the Code in that Respondent engaged in the conduct described above including, but not limited to, the following:
A. Respondent's cut and paste medical notes from Patient A's first medical visit are used in all subsequent visits with minimal new information.
B. Respondent did not document the July 14, 2015 hypnotherapy in Patient A's medical records at Schuman-Liles Clinic.
C. Respondent kept "off the books" personal handwritten notes ofthe July 14, 2015 hypnotherapy which are illegible and incoherent.
C. There is no documentation of a PTSD diagnosis for which Respondent based his rationale for treatment of Patient A with sexualized hypnotherapy.[sic on lettering.]
#FARCE—the MBC did not list anywhere, as of 3/31/2018, what exactly the charges are against this doctor, thereby not being transparent in their behavior and keeping the public safely informed. |
