STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION /' DOCKET NO. AP-09-~1 I'\. l~E C - C·I). ffj- I~j a. '-i( 'J oo~ JILL D. McCOLLUM, Petitioner ORDER ON PETITIONER'S v. SOC APPEAL
MAINE BOARD OF COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE, Respondent
BEFORE THE COURT
Petitioner Jill McCollum appeals a decision of the Maine Board of
Counseling Professional Licensure (hereinafter the "Board") pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. SOC
BACKGROUND
Jill McCollum, Ph. D., L.CP.C, is self-employed and maintains her office
in South Portland, where she provides therapy for her clients. McCollum earned
a Ph. D. with a major in clinical psychology in 1992 and was licensed in South
Carolina as a Licensed Professional Counselor in 1992. 1 McCollum moved to
Maine in 1999 where she became a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor on
September 24, 2001. McCollum is also a licensed drug and alcohol counselor.
McCollum has never been licensed as a psychologist in the State of Maine.
On November 1, 2006, M.e. became one of McCollum's clients. M.G. is
female, and is in her late sixties. M.e. sought therapy for depression and anxiety
and was recommended to McCollum by a friend. M.e. had suicidal thoughts in
the recent past. She received treatment by at least ten different clinicians for
1 While 1992 is the date provided in the record and in the Board"s Findings of Facts,
according to McCollum' s 80C Appeal, she earned her Ph. D. and was licensed in South Carolina as a Licensed Professional Counselor in 1987. Post-TraUl1latic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID),
also known as Multiple Personality Disorder. DID is a disorder defined as
existing when an individual has two or more distinct personalities. It is difficult
to provide counseling for DID because the alternate personalities may come and
go or fragment according to the situation. Prior to M.G., McCollum had
counseled one other DID client and attended DID training sessions. McCollum
estimated that M.e. had at least ten alternate personalities. M.e. informed
McCollum that she had been abused since about the age of three, and her various
personalities spilnned from age three to age sixteen. M.G. was being treated by a
psychiatrist concurrent with her counseling with McCollum. By mid-May 2007,
McCollum had conducted more than 48 single or double counseling sessions
with M.G. During the course of treatment, McCollum never sought peer
supervision to help her with M.G.'s case, which McCollu111 recognized as a
complex and difficult case.
The BOilfd's disciplinary actions against McCollum arise out of two
events. First, McCollum misrepresented her credentials on a business card she
gave to M.G. According to M.e., McCollum's office door had a sign designating
her as a "Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor." In the course of counseling,
McCollum gave M.G. a business card upon which she identified herself as a
"Clinical Psychologist." Although McCollum is not a licensed psychologist in
Maine, she testified that she likes to think of herself as a psychologist since she
earned her doctorate in psychology. The card also bears the abbreviation
"L.P.c.", the abbreviation in Maine for a licensed professional counselor. The
business card does not identify McCollum as a "licensed clinical professional
counselor," the license McCollum holds, which is considered to be a higher level
2 of licensure than a "L.P.c." Before McCollum gave M.e. the business card she
added her home and cell phone numbers to it, but did not make any changes to
the licensure information. McCollum claims that the cards were a gift from her
son after she obtained her Ph.D. She claims that she meant to destroy all of the
cards, and did not intend to be deceitful or fraudulent when she gave M.e. the
card. She claims she was in a hurry because another client was in the waiting
room. According to M.e., the card's wording confused her, and caused her to
lose trust in McCollum.
The Board's second disciplinary action stems from a series of acts. M.e.
had warned McCollum that she strongly opposed role-playing therapy
techniques due to a prior unpleasant experience with another therapist.
Nevertheless, on or about May 18, 2007, McCollum initiated anger work with
towel therapy, which consists of M.e. pulJing and twisting and giving words to
the anger while McCollum gave resistance and encouragement. During the
towel therapy, McCollum claims she heard M.e. say, "Johnny, you said it was
okay (to do the sexual act)." To encourage M.G., McCollum claims she said, "It's
okay." M.G., or an alternative personality, apparently thought McCollum said,
"Just slip it in." McCollum says that she stated that "I am not your brother" and
the activity abruptly stopped. This incident contributed to M.G.'s growing
distrust of McCollum and prompted some suicidal thoughts.
In an effort to re-establish trust, McCollum offered to call M.G. every day
for four consecutive days. The Board found that McCollum only attempted to
call on the first day. McCollum says she followed through on the first two days.
McCollum says that on the night before the third call, h'\TO of her pet cats went
missing for three days, and were later found severely harmed by a probable
3 raccoon attack. This prevented McCollum from following through on her
promise to call M.G. on the third day because McCollum was distraught and
thought her phone call would cause more harm than good. M.G. was disturbed
by this breach and became angry, belligerent, and resentful. M.G. called
McCollum on the fourth day before McCollum had a chance to call her, and
expressed her feelings. M.G. terminated the counseling relationship on June 27,
2007. McCollum left M.e. a phone message saying she "honored [M.G.'s]
decision and would close my file that day and there would be no second chances
.. ." such that M.G. would not be accepted back into counseling. Two and one
half weeks later, McCollum called M.G. to inquire about M.G.'s health. M.G. was
interested in resuming therapy and McCollum agreed. Their sessions however
were unproductive and the relationship was terminated for good on or about
July 18, 2007.
On September 26,2007, M.G. filed a Complaint against McCollum. On
April 7, 2009, the Maine Board of Counseling Professional Licensure sent a
Notice of Hearing to McCollum based on M.G.'s Complaint. An Amended
Notice of Hearing was sent on April 24, 2009. M.G.'s Complaint alleged that
McCollum engaged in five counts of unprofessional conduct. In particular,
Counts I and V in the April 24, 2009, Notice of Hearing alleged that McCollum
did the following:
(1) Represented [herself] as [a] clinical psychologist to [M.G.] on multiple occasions including presenting her with several business cards on which [McCollum] so identified [herself], although [she] did not then and never have held a license to practice as [a] psychologist in the State of Maine; (5) Failed to abide by rules established by [her] wi th respect to the therapeutic relationship with [M.G.]. Specifically, [shel failed to follow through with a short-term intervention of a promised series of telephone calls and both contacted and re-engaged in a professional counseling relationship [sic] [M.G.] after termination and after an [sic] affirmatively
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION /' DOCKET NO. AP-09-~1 I'\. l~E C - C·I). ffj- I~j a. '-i( 'J oo~ JILL D. McCOLLUM, Petitioner ORDER ON PETITIONER'S v. SOC APPEAL
MAINE BOARD OF COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE, Respondent
BEFORE THE COURT
Petitioner Jill McCollum appeals a decision of the Maine Board of
Counseling Professional Licensure (hereinafter the "Board") pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. SOC
BACKGROUND
Jill McCollum, Ph. D., L.CP.C, is self-employed and maintains her office
in South Portland, where she provides therapy for her clients. McCollum earned
a Ph. D. with a major in clinical psychology in 1992 and was licensed in South
Carolina as a Licensed Professional Counselor in 1992. 1 McCollum moved to
Maine in 1999 where she became a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor on
September 24, 2001. McCollum is also a licensed drug and alcohol counselor.
McCollum has never been licensed as a psychologist in the State of Maine.
On November 1, 2006, M.e. became one of McCollum's clients. M.G. is
female, and is in her late sixties. M.e. sought therapy for depression and anxiety
and was recommended to McCollum by a friend. M.e. had suicidal thoughts in
the recent past. She received treatment by at least ten different clinicians for
1 While 1992 is the date provided in the record and in the Board"s Findings of Facts,
according to McCollum' s 80C Appeal, she earned her Ph. D. and was licensed in South Carolina as a Licensed Professional Counselor in 1987. Post-TraUl1latic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID),
also known as Multiple Personality Disorder. DID is a disorder defined as
existing when an individual has two or more distinct personalities. It is difficult
to provide counseling for DID because the alternate personalities may come and
go or fragment according to the situation. Prior to M.G., McCollum had
counseled one other DID client and attended DID training sessions. McCollum
estimated that M.e. had at least ten alternate personalities. M.e. informed
McCollum that she had been abused since about the age of three, and her various
personalities spilnned from age three to age sixteen. M.G. was being treated by a
psychiatrist concurrent with her counseling with McCollum. By mid-May 2007,
McCollum had conducted more than 48 single or double counseling sessions
with M.G. During the course of treatment, McCollum never sought peer
supervision to help her with M.G.'s case, which McCollu111 recognized as a
complex and difficult case.
The BOilfd's disciplinary actions against McCollum arise out of two
events. First, McCollum misrepresented her credentials on a business card she
gave to M.G. According to M.e., McCollum's office door had a sign designating
her as a "Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor." In the course of counseling,
McCollum gave M.G. a business card upon which she identified herself as a
"Clinical Psychologist." Although McCollum is not a licensed psychologist in
Maine, she testified that she likes to think of herself as a psychologist since she
earned her doctorate in psychology. The card also bears the abbreviation
"L.P.c.", the abbreviation in Maine for a licensed professional counselor. The
business card does not identify McCollum as a "licensed clinical professional
counselor," the license McCollum holds, which is considered to be a higher level
2 of licensure than a "L.P.c." Before McCollum gave M.e. the business card she
added her home and cell phone numbers to it, but did not make any changes to
the licensure information. McCollum claims that the cards were a gift from her
son after she obtained her Ph.D. She claims that she meant to destroy all of the
cards, and did not intend to be deceitful or fraudulent when she gave M.e. the
card. She claims she was in a hurry because another client was in the waiting
room. According to M.e., the card's wording confused her, and caused her to
lose trust in McCollum.
The Board's second disciplinary action stems from a series of acts. M.e.
had warned McCollum that she strongly opposed role-playing therapy
techniques due to a prior unpleasant experience with another therapist.
Nevertheless, on or about May 18, 2007, McCollum initiated anger work with
towel therapy, which consists of M.e. pulJing and twisting and giving words to
the anger while McCollum gave resistance and encouragement. During the
towel therapy, McCollum claims she heard M.e. say, "Johnny, you said it was
okay (to do the sexual act)." To encourage M.G., McCollum claims she said, "It's
okay." M.G., or an alternative personality, apparently thought McCollum said,
"Just slip it in." McCollum says that she stated that "I am not your brother" and
the activity abruptly stopped. This incident contributed to M.G.'s growing
distrust of McCollum and prompted some suicidal thoughts.
In an effort to re-establish trust, McCollum offered to call M.G. every day
for four consecutive days. The Board found that McCollum only attempted to
call on the first day. McCollum says she followed through on the first two days.
McCollum says that on the night before the third call, h'\TO of her pet cats went
missing for three days, and were later found severely harmed by a probable
3 raccoon attack. This prevented McCollum from following through on her
promise to call M.G. on the third day because McCollum was distraught and
thought her phone call would cause more harm than good. M.G. was disturbed
by this breach and became angry, belligerent, and resentful. M.G. called
McCollum on the fourth day before McCollum had a chance to call her, and
expressed her feelings. M.G. terminated the counseling relationship on June 27,
2007. McCollum left M.e. a phone message saying she "honored [M.G.'s]
decision and would close my file that day and there would be no second chances
.. ." such that M.G. would not be accepted back into counseling. Two and one
half weeks later, McCollum called M.G. to inquire about M.G.'s health. M.G. was
interested in resuming therapy and McCollum agreed. Their sessions however
were unproductive and the relationship was terminated for good on or about
July 18, 2007.
On September 26,2007, M.G. filed a Complaint against McCollum. On
April 7, 2009, the Maine Board of Counseling Professional Licensure sent a
Notice of Hearing to McCollum based on M.G.'s Complaint. An Amended
Notice of Hearing was sent on April 24, 2009. M.G.'s Complaint alleged that
McCollum engaged in five counts of unprofessional conduct. In particular,
Counts I and V in the April 24, 2009, Notice of Hearing alleged that McCollum
did the following:
(1) Represented [herself] as [a] clinical psychologist to [M.G.] on multiple occasions including presenting her with several business cards on which [McCollum] so identified [herself], although [she] did not then and never have held a license to practice as [a] psychologist in the State of Maine; (5) Failed to abide by rules established by [her] wi th respect to the therapeutic relationship with [M.G.]. Specifically, [shel failed to follow through with a short-term intervention of a promised series of telephone calls and both contacted and re-engaged in a professional counseling relationship [sic] [M.G.] after termination and after an [sic] affirmatively
4 stating that the professional counseling relationship would not be re establ ished.
Amended Notice of Hearing from Maine Dept. of Prof'l Licensing to Jill D.
McCollUl1' (Apr. 24, 2(09) (Administrative Record, Exhibit lA). A hearing was
held on May 15, 2009. Following the hearing, the Board issued a decision on
June 22, 2009. Based on the Board's findings of facts and the evidence in the
record, including expert testimony, the Board voted 6-1 that McCollum had
violated 32 M.R.S. § 13861(F)2 and Chapter 8, section 3 of the Board's Code of
Ethics" with respect the allegations in Count 1; and the Board voted 7-0 that
McCollum had violated 32 M.R.s. § 1386l(E)~ with respect to the allegations in
Count V.
As a result of the Board's findings: (1) the Board placed McCollum on
probation for a period of one year, which includes meetings with a Disciplinary
Supervisor who will provide instruction with respect to psychological trauma
training, and recommend training on Dissociative ldentity Disorders; (2) the
Board required McCollum to pay $2,147.50 for the costs of the hearing; (3)
2 32 M. R.S. ~ J 3861 was repealed in 2007. Because the Complaint was filed in September 2007 when ~ 13861 was still in effect, ~ 13861 applies to this case. 32 M.R.S. § 13861(F) provides that the Board's actions may be takcn based on: Unprofessional conduct, which is the violation of any client bill of rights, standard of professional behavior or code of ethics adopted by the board. 3 Chapter 8. section 3(A) of the Board's Code of Ethics provides: A licensee's ... responsibility is to the client. The licensee ... shal1 make every reasonable effort to protect the welfare and best interests of those who seck services .. " Unprofessional conduct includes ... (3) engaging in dishonesty, fraud. deceit or misrepresentation while performing professional services. 4 32 M.R.S. ~ 13861 (E) provides that the Board's actions may be taken based on: Incompetence in the practice of counseling. A licensee ... shal1 be deemed incompetent in the practice if the licensee ... has engaged in conduct that evidences a lack of ability or fitness to discharge the duty owed by the licensee ... to a client ... or has engaged in conduct that evidences a lack of knowledge or inability to apply principles or skill to carry out the practice for which that person is licensed. 5 McCollum was given a warning for the violation in Count I; and (4) McCollum
received censure for the violation in Count V.
On appeal, McCollum claims the following: (1) with respect to the
business card incident, the punishment was too harsh and bore no relationship to
the offense allegedly committed; (2) with respect to the events related to her
treatment of M.G., she claims her conduct could not have been unprofessional
beGlUse there is no prescribed blueprint or standard of c()re for the treatment of
people with DID; and (3) she claims she did not receive due process in the
proceeding before the Board.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
In evaluating ()n 80C Appeal, it is not for the court to determine whether it
would h()ve reached the s()me result as the agency, but to decide whether the
record contains competent and substantial evidence in support of the decision
reached. CWCO, ll1c. v. SlIpcrilltclldcllt 0f1I1slIrnllcc, 1997 ME 226, err 6,703 A.2d
1258, 1261. The party seeking review of final agency action has the burden of
proof. Grcclyv. Co 111 111 'I', Dcp't of HI/111m I Servs., 2000 ME 56,
474. In order to meet this burden, a petitioner must demonstrate that the record
compels a contrary conclusion. Magllctic Resollallce TeclJJ1ologics of Maillc v.
Co II Il/I 'I', Maillc Dep't of Hill/Inn Scrvs., 652 A.2d 655, 659 (Me. 1995). The court's
review is limited to "determining whether the agency's conclusions are
unreasonable, unjust or unlawful in light of the record." Maille Carc Servs. v.
Maillc Dcp't of Hlll/lml Servs., 2002 Me. Super. LEXIS 143, *5-6.
II. Unprofessional Conduct and Professional Incompetence
6 Upon the review of the Board's findings and conclusions, and of
McCollum's appeal, the court finds that substantial evidence supports the
Board's decision. In an 80C appeal the burden is on the petitioner to
demonstrate that the record compels a contrary conclusion. McCol1um has not
pointed to any evidence that suggests the Board's conclusions are unreasonable,
unjust, or unlawful.
III. McCollum's Due Process Claim
McCol1um claims that the process by which the Board reviews
professional misconduct complaints deprived her of due process. The core of
McCollum's claim is as follows: The person who brings a Complaint against a
licensed professional can present facts to the board, without any counter
argument by the professional, inducing the board to bring a formal Complaint
against the professional. In McCollum's vievv, at the hearing, "the Board decides
whether or not it was initially correct in agreeing with the [person bringing the
Complaint], which has the unbridled opportunity to sway and influence the
Board before the professional has had one moment to defend herself."
McCollum's belief that the Board's procedure amounts to a deprivation of
due process is founded upon an incorrect perception of the Board's role. Under
32 M.R.S. § 13861(3), a person seeking disciplinary action may file a Complaint
with the Board alleging facts against a licensee. "If the board determines that a
complaint alleges facts that, if true, would require ... disciplinary action, the
board shall conduct a hearing pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedure
Act." The process that McCollum deplores is designed to protect professionals
in her position from frivolous claims. Furthermore, the hearing is designed to
provide licensed professionals with an opportunity to explain their actions in
7 light of the charges brought against them. The hearing required by the Maine
APA exists to guarantee that due process is afforded. 5 M.R.S. § 10003.
The fact that the Board that screens Complaints is the same Board that oversees
hearings does not mean that due process is violated.
As explained in the Respondent's brief, McCollum's due process claim
fails based on the reasoning of Wit/now v. Lnrkills, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975). In
WitlImw, a physician claimed that his procedural due process rights were
violated because the same members of the state board that conducted
investigations into allegations of professional misconduct would have also
presided at his suspension hearing. The Supreme Court held:
The irutial charge or determination of probable cause and the ultimate adjudication have different bases and purposes. The fact that the same agency makes them in tandem and that they relate to the same issues does not result in a procedural due process violation. Clearly, if the initial view of the facts based on the evidence derived from nonadversarial processes as a practical or legal matter foreclosed fair and effective consideration at a subsequent adversary hearing leading to ultimate decision, a substantial due process question would be raised. But in our view, that is not this case. [The] combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not, without more, constitute a due process violation.
Witliro'w, 421 U.S. at 58. In the instant case, the fact that the Board initially has an
investigative role, and later an adjudicative role does not amount to a violation of
due process. For this reason, McCollum's due process claim fails.
8 Therefore, the entry is:
The Board's findings and conclusions are AFFIRMED and McCollum's appeal is DENIED
Dated at Portland, Maine this 2 t ~ day of ~ .... ~ 2009.
Robert E. Crowley Justice, Superior Court
9 Date hied 07-21-09 CUMBERLAND Docket No. AP-09-31 County
Action 8_0_C_A_p"-p"-e_a_l _
JILL D. MCCOLLUM STATE OF MAINE BOARD OF COUNSELING PROFESSIONALS LICENSURE YS.
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
KENNETH P. ALTSHULER, ESQ. JUDITH PETERS AAG 257 DEERING AVENUE 6 STATE HOUSE STATION PORTLAND, ME 04103-4898 AUGUSTA ME 04333
Date of