12-09-14 AGO PRR Part 6

150 Pages·2014·21.03 MB·English

From: Howell, Jason (ATG)
To: Lorentson, Brett W (DOH)
Dempsey, Bruce W (DOH)
CC: Bucknell, Jack E (DOH)
Date: 5/8/2013 4:40:06 PM
Subject: FW: Advice
Attachments: FW: Redaction issue for Jack
RE: New Redact-It Reason Code
ATTORENY CLIENT PRIVILEGED.

[1b]

[1b]
.

Jason M. Howell
Assistant Attorney General
Washington Attorney General's Office
Agriculture and Health Division
T: [phone]
F: [phone]
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication. Attorney Work Product. Do not copy, disseminate, forward, or divulge
the contents of this communication to anyone other than addressee.
Please don't print this message unless necessary.

From: Lorentson, Brett W (DOH)
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 4:15 PM
To: Howell, Jason (ATG)
Subject: Advice

Jason,

[1a]

[1a]

[1a]

I am open to further discussion, and if you need any additional information to help you formulate your opinion.
CH2-000955
PRR-2014-00442
Thanks.

Brett Lorentson
Agency Public Records Disclosure Coordinator
Office of the Secretary
Department of Health
PO Box 47890
Olympia WA 98504-7890
360.236.4220

CH2-000956
PRR-2014-00442
From: Kim, Tony C (DOH)
To: Bucknell, Jack E (DOH)
Date: 5/7/2013 8:23:20 AM
Subject: FW: Redaction issue for Jack
Attachments: Segment 001 of Case File_72398_pdf-r redacted.pdf
Segment 001 of Case File_72398 unredacted.pdf
Hi Jack
Could you please take a look at the below email and let us know how to proceed or can you
handle this directly?

Thanks,

Tony

From: Lucas, Krystal S (DOH)
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:19 AM
To: Kim, Tony C (DOH)
Subject: Redaction issue for Jack
Importance: High

Hi Tony,

I spoke with Shellie this morning about the e-mail below. He is trying to appeal redactions before an installment is finished.
Shellie told me to forward this e-mail with the documents to you to get to Jack. I do have to respond to him prior to Jennifer’s
return, but not necessarily today.

Thank you,

Krystal Lucas, Forms & Records Analyst 2
Health Systems Quality Assurance (HSQA)
HSQA/Public Disclosure Unit
111 Israel Road S.E., P.O. Box 47865
Olympia, WA 98504-7865
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]

From: Christopher Hupy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:57 PM
To: Lucas, Krystal S (DOH)
Subject: RE: Public Disclosure Request Re: Douglas Bartholomew LH_2011-154410 Segment 1 -- Installment 1

Krystal,

I would like to formally challenge the redaction on pages 78-81 of this installment. The claimed exemption is
attorney work product RCW 42.56.290 this report was conducted by Harriet Cannon a Licensed Mental Health
Care Provider, she is not a lawyer nor a employee of the DOH, she played no role in the decision of misconduct of
Mr. Bartholomew and her report would have been subject to discovery at any administrative law proceedings and
possibly upon receipt by the DOH to the involved parties.

This cannot be claimed as work product, please provide me complete unredacted pages 79-80-81.

CH2-000957
PRR-2014-00442
Electronic delivery and format is requested and preferred of the responsive documents.

Christopher J. Hupy
Superior Court Judges Association
PO Box 12655
Everett, WA 98206
503-931-4991

This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only for the use of the intended recipients
identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution,
downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by reply email, delete the
communication and destroy all copies.
Subject: Public Disclosure Request Re: Douglas Bartholomew LH_2011-154410 Segment 1 -- Installment 1
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 14:12:25 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Dear Christopher Hupy:
We received your public records request on 02/28/2013, for the following records: emails regarding Douglas Bartholomew
and 2011-154410LH and 2011-157495LH. Your request will require copying and reviewing a large number of records.
Completed documents will be provided in monthly installments of approximately 250 pages until the request has been
fulfilled. We have located and assembled 223 pages of responsive records for the first installment, copies of which are now
available to you.
<<BARTHOLOMEW, DOUGLAS LH_2011-154410NMR.pdf>>
Should you no longer need this information, please notify our office.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me via email at [email protected] or phone
at [phone].
Sincerely,

Krystal Lucas, Forms & Records Analyst
Health Systems Quality Assurance (HSQA)
HSQA/Public Disclosure Unit
111 Israel Road S.E., P.O. Box 47865
Olympia, WA 98504-7865
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]
CH2-000958
PRR-2014-00442
1 - Attorney Work Product - RCW 42.56.290
1 - Attorney Work Product - RCW 42.56.290
CH2-000959
PRR-2014-00442
BARTHOLOMEW, DOUGLAS LH_2011-154410 SEGMENT 1 INSTALLMENT 1 PAGE 78
1 - Attorney Work Product - RCW 42.56.290
CH2-000960
PRR-2014-00442
BARTHOLOMEW, DOUGLAS LH_2011-154410 SEGMENT 1 INSTALLMENT 1 PAGE 79
1 - Attorney Work Product - RCW 42.56.290
CH2-000961
PRR-2014-00442
BARTHOLOMEW, DOUGLAS LH_2011-154410 SEGMENT 1 INSTALLMENT 1 PAGE 80
• ^
janet Staige rI,.D., Staff Attorney
Washington State Department of Health
Office of Legal Services
POBox 47873
Olympia ,WA 98504-7873 November 22, 2011
Dear Ms. Staiger,
The purpose ofthis letter is to respond to your rfoerques tan expert of review case
number 2011-154410, and to opine on whether Douglas Barth Mol.oSm., LeMwH,C
had behavior below the stand oafrd practice on this case.
In my opinion, the 'Order of Protection Risk Assessment' M rr.epor tBartholomew
prepared at the request ofthe court was unprofessional in structure, tone, and
language. Additionally, in my opin Miorn., Bartholomew's assessment was biased
toward finding domestic viole innce favor of the allegations by the complainant's
former spouse. Therapist professional bias is harmful to a client.
The NBCC Code of Ethics states:
Section B, Number 1,' the primary oblig aotfio ncertified counselors is to respect the
integrity and promote the wel foafre clients'
Section B, Number 12 'Counselors have a through aw oafrene st hsoef impact
stereotyping and unwarranted discrimination. Certified counselors guard the
individual rights and the personal dignity of the icnlien tthe counseling relationship'
Mr. Bartholomew's assessment is below the standard of professional mental health
care practice .A biased report suc Mh ra.s Bartholomew's can harm a client by
casting unsubstantiated aspersions on a client's behaviors or character structure,
which produces unnecessary anx fioerty the client a swell as anxiety, time and
expense for all parties invol vined any divorce or custody process.
Mr. Bartholomew's unrepentant attitude in the deposition when confronted about
the mistakes/unprofessional judgments in his assessment of is aM lcsroo. ncern.
Bartholomew minimized the structural and clinical mistakes in his assessment
when they were pointed o Mutr.. Bartholomew was defensive, making light ofhis
lack of proofreading and incomprehensible sentence st rMucr.tures .Bartholomew
did not appear to give any credit to the fact that his mistakes, bot hclinical and in the
structure ofhis report, could have a harmful effect on the complainant. In my
opinion, Doug Bartholomew's overly strident bias towards domestic violence in his
assessment an dMr. Bartholomew's insensitive attitude was unprofessional and did
harm the complainant.
CH2-000962
PRR-2014-00442
Mr. Bartholomew's 'Orde rof Risk Assessment' is poorly written, sloppy and
inconsistent. The following are some specific exampl eosf unprofessional behavior.
judge Michael Fox, who did not acc eMptr. Bartholomew's assessment, stated
'in 22 years on the bench 1 have never received a report such as this' the
report had grammar, spelling and content errors that were below the
standard of practice.
The complainant state dMr. Bartholomew appeared distracted, made
mistakes, and did not remember things the complainant told him from one
interview to the next. (See complaint)
Mr. Bartholomew's report showed unprofessional bias in a numb oefr ways:
1. He stated his information gathering was based on 4-5 hou orsf contact
with Complainan tin person and 1.5 hour sof contact with
complainant's ex spouse by telephone. P287 deposition. The
justification for his disparit yin the quality of information gathering
from the complainant and his ex-spouse was 'I really don't keep track
of time'.
2. Mr. Bartholomew state din the assessment 'this couple should not be
married' .P 144
3. An example ofthe biased language and unprofessional attitude used
in the assessmen tM, r. Bartholomew stated (p22)'Tom' slife
experience, according to him have simply not included those
experiences which lead a person to patience, compassion, empathy
and good boundaries. Unfortunatel yin, my discussions with him, he
shown little or no interes tin rectifying his shortcoming.'
4. Mr. Bartholomew used unprofessional attitude and unprofessional
language in his dismissa lof collateral contact information from the
complainant's former marriage counselor (with whom the
complainant worked for two years and individual therapist with
whom the.complainant worked for five months] as 'bait and switch'
information pi46.
5. Mr. Bartholomew state din the record (deposition) that he always
finds domestic violence when he does an assessment. He stated the
physical abuse incidents reported by the complainant's ex wife were
the 'tip ofthe iceberg'.
6. Mr. Bartholomew misquoted complainant and applied som oef
complainant's ex-spouse's statements to complain iannt the
assessment report. P80
7. Mr. Bartholomew left out part ofthe intake information for the
complainant on information supplied to the court. P187
8. Mr. Bartholomew's assessment included statements that complainant
used money to control his ex spouse with bank transfers. It was later
declared that the bank transfer(s) were done on the advise ofhis
attorney as part of the divorce process. P176
CH2-000963
PRR-2014-00442
9. Much of Mr. Bartholomew's notes from the assessment are
incomplete, sloppy/unintelligible and incomprehensible.
Roland Maiuro P, h.D. ,was contacted for a second opinion assessment. Dr.
Maiuro had a very differen topinion about the nature ofth edomestic abuse
allegations. Dr. Maiuro's assessment stated tha tthe physical abuse
allegations are inconclusive and tha tthe alleged physical abuse incidents
were atypical of Domestic Violence behavior patterns. Dr. Maiuro
recommended the complainant finish the Domestic Viole nclcaes bsecause
Dr. Maiuro's assessment showed there was some evidence of psychological
controlling behavior on the par tof the complainant towards his ex-spouse.
Below are some ofthe comments Dr. Maiuro had about Mr. Bartholomew's
assessment.
1. The prior evaluator's conceptual framework for making
decisions/findings in favor of domestic violence and abuse
(personality profile) is internally inconsistent, somewhat
idiosyncratic and not supported in the literature' p 855
2. Dr. Maiuro states tha the disagrees wit hMr. Bartholomew's
assessment that the domestic abuse allegations are 'the tip of the
iceberg' Dr. Maiuro stated these allegations 'are the iceberg', with
inconclusive evidence any physical domestic violence occurred.
3. Dr. Maiuro whose assessment too kbalanced time with both
complainant and complainant's ex spouse stated 'Tom underreports
events and Irene over reports/embellishes to mak eca as efor her
wants and needs.' P856
Sincerely,
Harriet Cannon, M.C L,MF TL,MHC
Harriet Cannon, M.C L,MF TL,MHC
150 Nickerson, Suite 203
Seattle, WA 98109
Tel [phone]
CH2-000964
PRR-2014-00442