Registrant: Dr. Kevin Miller (Registrant No. 1780)
Date: July 30, 2020
Status: In Effect
Nature of Action: The Registrant agreed to undertakings under section 36(1)(d) of the Health Professions Act placing conditions on his practice. The Registrant agreed to a period of supervision lasting 3-6 months, subject to extensions totaling 12 months, that covers all aspects of his practice, with a particular focus on the following: (a) Obtaining and documenting informed consent before sharing information with anyone outside of a professional relationship; (b) obtaining and documenting fully informed consent at the outset of services and at any time there is a change in the treatment plan or nature of services; (c) maintaining records, including those related to phone calls, consultations, and supervision; and (d) responding to requests for information and documenting such requests. As the Registrant changed workplaces since the complaint was received, he also agreed to (e) a review of his former scope of practice and the practice considerations arising out of treatment provided in the context of an organization or with an interested third party; and (f) a review of his current practice to identify any similar practice considerations related to structuring treatment and maintaining boundaries where a third party or dual relationship might arise. The Registrant also agreed to write a letter of apology to the client, to follow any and all directions of the supervisor regarding his practice of psychology, and to pay for all reasonable costs related to the supervision.
Reason: The College received a complaint about the Registrant’s conduct in the context of treatment that he provided to a client within a large organization. The client had other involvement with that organization and expressed concern that information was shared with other individuals within the organization without her consent. The Registrant was of the view that he was obliged to share information with his supervisor, however, he acknowledged that written consent had not been obtained. The client was also concerned that during her treatment, the Registrant had become involved in her other matter and set conditions for how she engaged with the organization in order to continue receiving treatment from him.
The Complainant also raised concerns about the accuracy of information the Registrant provided to a collateral reference. This led to the Committee’s broader concern around how the Registrant responded to a request for information from a third party and his record keeping. As the registrant no longer works within that organization, the supervision includes a review of the identified issues in the content of both a large organization and also as they apply to his new practice setting.