Question

Dr.Bupkis was a psychologist practicing in State N. He was the subject of a complaint to the state for an inappropriate and intimate relationship with a patient. He denied the allegation. Because his “therapy” sessions were individual ,it was his word against that of his patient. However, when word of the complaint leaked out to the media, several former patients came forward and filed similar complaints. Interestingly, the doctor decided he need a change of scenery and relocated to another state. At the time of his move and application for licensure in State H, no action had been taken against his licensure status and discovered the action history, they discovered that five complaints were under investigation against Dr. Bupkis. Prior to licensure, State H required that he fully disclose the documents surrounding each investigation. The officials of State H further conditioned any licensure of Dr.Bupkis would first require a positive outcome without any significant disciplinary action in State N. The doctor withdrew his application for licensure. Explain what was so egregious about his behavior, the outcome of his actions, and his future due to the advent of information shared among jurisdictions.

Answer 1

The things which was so egregious about is behavior is trying to act as a clean person who is not subjected to any offence by applying licensure in State H. He wants to move out of the environment where patients are aware of his behavior to a new area where patient are not aware of him.

His actions of trying to get licensure for practice in State H when the licensure in State N was in great query because of the case alleged on him for his indisciplinary action to patient.

If he gets a licensure in State H ,even when he losses his licensure in state N, he will be having a job to practice making his future secured from any cases filed in the jurisdiction