-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
My New Therapist Terminated Me
- Post starter Nighthawk
- Start date
- Status
You actually have solid grounds to report her if you want to. If you agreed to the course and have a disability that you didnt realize might interfere, all you did was inquire about a possible solution. He abrupt termination based on you asking about an option to compensate over a diagnosed disability is a violation.
If she, or both you and she had discussed it further and come to the conclusion that therapy and group would not be compatible with your issue that would be different.
As is , according to that text and based on your post, that's disability discrimination. It's also disability discrimination that you have verified in writing with her phone number attached. ( thats always a gift )
What I also notice here, is that your therapy is terminated because she impulsively decided you dont fit into her agenda ( likely a work goal for herself if not financially motivated due to being soc.worker ). That also shows, any superior or colleague of hers would be raising their eyebrows at how blatant it is.
The way that she did that and how quickly, is really putting you in a position of being able to decide how far you want to take it. You have the right to approach it as a disability discrimination case if you want to. Frankly, I think she has it coming. I also think you're better off without her, even if she seemed great before this.
joeylittle
Sponsor
Just curious - is this true when it's therapist B who is prohibiting the accommodation device?
I think - could be wrong - that therapist A terminated the OP because the OP would not be able to do part of the therapy she was requiring - which was being offered by therapist B.
Therapist B is the one who said that no recording devices, even as disability accommodations, would be allowed.
I would assume that it's therapist B who is on the legal hook for discrimination, technically - and therapist A is demonstrating bad ethics but not sufficient for a discrimination case.
? I can see how I'd be wrong, tho...
It is, because they have a non negotiable condition that A and B must be working in partnership, one as a therapist and one as group therapist.
I may have misinterpreted something in the post, I can give a crystal clear quick evaluation if I can be sure that I understand it correctly.
I understood this to involve a third original therapist involved as well, that therapist A was strongly encouraging disengagement from, although OP said that was not their intention when they brought A into the picture. If this is the case, then there really are several ways to approach this all of which the OP is clearly in the right.
If I misunderstood, and A is the original and B is the one wanting to be sole therapy provider for OP in the group, then that aspect isn't that relevant. Because A would have already put in text that she was in agreement with that agenda. It looked to me that A was the secondary and intended additional therapist though.
Either way, what I see from the posts is that OP did say they wanted to find solutions and was then left to figure out solutions alone, as neither therapist put effort into finding possible solutions. ( mistake 1 )
When OP texted that they couldnt see how they could attend group when the solution that they thought of alone was not acceptable to therapist B, OP came to quick conclusion the group would not work for them. Immediately upon relating that conclusion, which was not based on anything other than the inability to negotiate around a diagnosed disability, he was terminated abruptly by text for both therapist A and Group Therapy B. (mistake 2 )
The type of disability OP is an unusually easy one to accommodate as well, there were several different ways to handle going about that, as Social Workers, or at least B is, they know that. It's also the responsibility of the therapist to know who their clients are and what they would be appropriately placed in outside of therapy. She had 8 sessions to figure out what any disabilities might exist and whether OP could be accommodated in her group. If she pressured OP to leave original therapist without discovering that, then abruptly terminates when she realizes it doesnt fit in her and her partners agenda, its malpractice. ( and 3. now a lawyer likes you )
The abandonment law that you attached applies, it is disability discrimination under the law, you cannot leave someone with a disability to be responsible for disability accommodation themselves once a service has commenced and the provider had prior knowledge of it or reasonable time and opportunity to discover the disability before agreements were made for services, as they were here.
The fact that she said something like " I hear you are saying that you wont be able to attend " just before the abrupt dumping of her client pisses me off.
There was zero thought into jumping on an opportunity to passive aggressively put the onus on OP for opting out, thinking the wording in OP text legally allowed her to do that.
From what I see, and its just from what I see here, this is something that could be pursued. I'd separate the disability and go to services just for that issue. Then take the rest to malpractice, with the disability issue included. It's good to have that one on two burners at once. But, that is just me. I'm certainly not telling anyone to do anything. I can only validate the therapist is a b***c.
I may have misinterpreted something in the post, I can give a crystal clear quick evaluation if I can be sure that I understand it correctly.
I understood this to involve a third original therapist involved as well, that therapist A was strongly encouraging disengagement from, although OP said that was not their intention when they brought A into the picture. If this is the case, then there really are several ways to approach this all of which the OP is clearly in the right.
If I misunderstood, and A is the original and B is the one wanting to be sole therapy provider for OP in the group, then that aspect isn't that relevant. Because A would have already put in text that she was in agreement with that agenda. It looked to me that A was the secondary and intended additional therapist though.
Either way, what I see from the posts is that OP did say they wanted to find solutions and was then left to figure out solutions alone, as neither therapist put effort into finding possible solutions. ( mistake 1 )
When OP texted that they couldnt see how they could attend group when the solution that they thought of alone was not acceptable to therapist B, OP came to quick conclusion the group would not work for them. Immediately upon relating that conclusion, which was not based on anything other than the inability to negotiate around a diagnosed disability, he was terminated abruptly by text for both therapist A and Group Therapy B. (mistake 2 )
The type of disability OP is an unusually easy one to accommodate as well, there were several different ways to handle going about that, as Social Workers, or at least B is, they know that. It's also the responsibility of the therapist to know who their clients are and what they would be appropriately placed in outside of therapy. She had 8 sessions to figure out what any disabilities might exist and whether OP could be accommodated in her group. If she pressured OP to leave original therapist without discovering that, then abruptly terminates when she realizes it doesnt fit in her and her partners agenda, its malpractice. ( and 3. now a lawyer likes you )
The abandonment law that you attached applies, it is disability discrimination under the law, you cannot leave someone with a disability to be responsible for disability accommodation themselves once a service has commenced and the provider had prior knowledge of it or reasonable time and opportunity to discover the disability before agreements were made for services, as they were here.
The fact that she said something like " I hear you are saying that you wont be able to attend " just before the abrupt dumping of her client pisses me off.
There was zero thought into jumping on an opportunity to passive aggressively put the onus on OP for opting out, thinking the wording in OP text legally allowed her to do that.
From what I see, and its just from what I see here, this is something that could be pursued. I'd separate the disability and go to services just for that issue. Then take the rest to malpractice, with the disability issue included. It's good to have that one on two burners at once. But, that is just me. I'm certainly not telling anyone to do anything. I can only validate the therapist is a b***c.
@joeylittle it's hard to explain why I can give fast responses on issues like these. That said, I have gone back and done more than just glance at the first posts. I actually feel like the whole entire debacle is malpractice. None of the infractions here are subjective.
It's likely they had a minimum number requirement for there group. When OP showed up, the pressure to make A the only therapist even though she clearly communicated that was not her intention or desire, is also for the same reason. Whatever the criteria A and B were meeting with client numbers could be anything from permission to hold the group to paying the rent for the room its in.
There is definitely an agenda and it wouldnt be too hard to discover what it is. When OP looked like a bad candidate after all, she was no longer needed with either A or B.
Thats why the repeat of OP's text and the unprofessionally instant firing of a client. They had to go get the person to fill OP's slot as soon as possible and didnt want to waste time. Normally I would not say much because private pay therapy, county work, and workers employed by and using office space in hospitals or clinics have different aspects to how they are handled or ignored. I dont think it matters in this situation.
@Nighthawk I'm sure your old therapist will take you back and be pretty disgusted with how you were treated. They know you, they'll understand.
It's likely they had a minimum number requirement for there group. When OP showed up, the pressure to make A the only therapist even though she clearly communicated that was not her intention or desire, is also for the same reason. Whatever the criteria A and B were meeting with client numbers could be anything from permission to hold the group to paying the rent for the room its in.
There is definitely an agenda and it wouldnt be too hard to discover what it is. When OP looked like a bad candidate after all, she was no longer needed with either A or B.
Thats why the repeat of OP's text and the unprofessionally instant firing of a client. They had to go get the person to fill OP's slot as soon as possible and didnt want to waste time. Normally I would not say much because private pay therapy, county work, and workers employed by and using office space in hospitals or clinics have different aspects to how they are handled or ignored. I dont think it matters in this situation.
@Nighthawk I'm sure your old therapist will take you back and be pretty disgusted with how you were treated. They know you, they'll understand.
- Post starter
- #54
@coco9 The way you said everything was correct. Mt original therapist did take me back but part of the reason for trying to move me over was that we have been stuck for a long time. I am still currently seeing her but still find the need for change. The problem I am having is the fear of changing after what just happened.
That is another reason you have a solid legal case @Nighthawk. Therapist A caused harm to your progress in recovery with her actions.
If you decide to take any kind of action, or just make a complaint, I hope you include that because its the most important part.
When you get a new therapist, tell them right away what happened and how you feel about it. They will be extra careful in being respectful of your fears after that. Because thats the norm, and what happened to you is a non typical experience from people that broke rules to further their own interests.
Hope you feel better soon and get it sorted out :)
- Status
Similar posts
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
