EMOTION DETECTIVES DELUSIONS ROLL ON SEPTEMBER 28 2017 TWITTER S
BEFORE THE SOCIAL WORKER, MARRIAGE
AND FAMILY THERAPIST, AND MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELOR BOARD OF INDIANA
CAUSE NO. 2008 BHSB
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF:
)
)
MARK E. SMITH, C.S.W.
)
)
FILED
APR 0 2 ZOOS
LICENSE NUMBER: 34001845A
)
)
)
)
Iridiana Professional
I irRnsing Aggnc^
)
)
)
COMPLAINT
The complaint is brought against the clinical social worker license by the State of
Indiana, by counsel. Deputy Attorney General, Heather C. Kennedy, on behalf of the Office of
the Attorney General ("Petitioner"), and pursuant to Indiana Code § 25-1-7-7, Ind. Code §25-1-
5-3, Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-8 and Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-11, the Administrative Orders and
Procedures Act, Ind. Code § 4-21.5-3 et seq. and Ind. Code § 25-1-9-1 et. seq. and in support
alleges and states:
FACTS
1. Respondent's address on file with the Board is 13638 Elgin Drive, Carmel, IN
46032, and he is a duly licensed Clinical Social Worker in the State of Indiana having been
issued license number 34001845A.
2. At all time pertinent to this Complaint, Respondent practiced as a clinical social
worker at Family Tree Counseling ("Family Tree") in Carmel, Indiana. At the time of the
Exhibit "A"
On or about July 7, 2004, Magellan filed an Adverse Action Report against the
Respondent, in order to be maintained within The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank.
consiuner complaint. Respondent was the President and sole owner of Family Tree and has held
that position each year since.
3.
While acting as President of Family Tree, Respondent submitted all claims to
Magellan Healfli Services ("Magellan") in his name, while services were actually rendered by
other Family Tree employees.
4. On or about May 4, 2004, Respondent was notified by his insurance carrier,
Magellan, that all contracts and/or agreements with them were terminated due to: quality of care
concerns related to allowing an unlicensed therapist in Respondent's practice to treat a member
referred by Magellan, failure to adequately supervise the unlicensed provider, and submission of
claims to Magellan under Respondent's name for that treatment, when in fact Respondent's
subordinate rendered the services.
COUNTI
Respondent's conduct described above constitutes a violation of Indiana Code § 25-1-9-
4(a)(1)(B) in that the Respondent engaged in material deception in the course of professional
services or activities, as evidenced by Respondent submission of claims to Magellan for services
services were provided, to wit: 839 lAC l-3-4(b) The competent practice of social work and
clinical social work includes, acting within generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines
ethical principles include, birtare not limited to: NASW Ethics Code 3.05: Social workers should
establish and maintain billing practices that accurately reflect the nature and extent of services
provided and that identify who provided the service in the practice setting.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands an order against Respondent that:
1. Impose(s) the appropriate disciplinary sanction;
2. Directs Respondent to immediately pay all costs incurred in the
prosecution of this case;
3. Provides any other relief the Board deems and proper.
Respectfully submitted.
STEVE CARTER
Attorney General of Indiana
A
By:
Headier C. Kennedy
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.: 26317-49A
I certify that a copy of the "Complaint" has been duly served upon the Respondent listed
below, by United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, on this
Heather C. Kennedy A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE
day of
, 2008.
Schultz & Pogue, LLP
Attn: Peter Pogue
11611 N. Meridian Street, Sixite 706
Carmel, IN 46032
Mark E. Smith
13638 Elgin Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
Deputy Attomey General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, Fifth Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Telephone Number (317) 233-2351
PROBABLY REHASHED FILINGS. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THEM IN ORDER AND IN FULL GO TO THE BEHAVIORAL BOARD WEBSITE AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES.
BEFORE THE SOCIAL WORKER, MARRIAGE
AND FAMILY THERAPIST, AND MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELOR BOARD OF INDIANA
CAUSE NO. 2008 BHSB
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF:
)
)
MARK E. SMITH, C.S.W.
)
)
FILED
APR 0 2 ZOOS
BEFORE THE SOCIAL WORKER, MARRIAGE
AND FAMILY THERAPIST, AND MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELOR BOARD OF INDIANA
CAUSE NO. 2008 BHSB
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF:
)
)
MARK E. SMITH, C.S.W.
FILED
APR 0 2 ZOOS
LICENSE NUMBER: 34001845A
Iridiana Professional
I irRnsing Aggnc^
COMPLAINT
The complaint is brought against the clinical social worker license by the State of
Indiana, by counsel. Deputy Attorney General, Heather C. Kennedy, on behalf of the Office of
the Attorney General ("Petitioner"), and pursuant to Indiana Code § 25-1-7-7, Ind. Code §25-1-
5-3, Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-8 and Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-11, the Administrative Orders and
Procedures Act, Ind. Code § 4-21.5-3 et seq. and Ind. Code § 25-1-9-1 et. seq. and in support
alleges and states:
FACTS
1. Respondent's address on file with the Board is 13638 Elgin Drive, Carmel, IN
46032, and he is a duly licensed Clinical Social Worker in the State of Indiana having been
issued license number 34001845A.
2. At all time pertinent to this Complaint, Respondent practiced as a clinical social
worker at Family Tree Counseling ("Family Tree") in Carmel, Indiana. At the time of the
Exhibit "A"
On or about July 7, 2004, Magellan filed an Adverse Action Report against the
Respondent, in order to be maintained within The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank.
consiuner complaint. Respondent was the President and sole owner of Family Tree and has held
that position each year since.
3.
While acting as President of Family Tree, Respondent submitted all claims to
Magellan Healfli Services ("Magellan") in his name, while services were actually rendered by
other Family Tree employees.
4. On or about May 4, 2004, Respondent was notified by his insurance carrier,
Magellan, that all contracts and/or agreements with them were terminated due to: quality of care
concerns related to allowing an unlicensed therapist in Respondent's practice to treat a member
referred by Magellan, failure to adequately supervise the unlicensed provider, and submission of
claims to Magellan under Respondent's name for that treatment, when in fact Respondent's
subordinate rendered the services.
COUNTI
Respondent's conduct described above constitutes a violation of Indiana Code § 25-1-9-
4(a)(1)(B) in that the Respondent engaged in material deception in the course of professional
services or activities, as evidenced by Respondent submission of claims to Magellan for services
services were provided, to wit: 839 lAC l-3-4(b) The competent practice of social work and
clinical social work includes, acting within generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines
ethical principles include, birtare not limited to: NASW Ethics Code 3.05: Social workers should
establish and maintain billing practices that accurately reflect the nature and extent of services
provided and that identify who provided the service in the practice setting.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands an order against Respondent that:
1. Impose(s) the appropriate disciplinary sanction;
2. Directs Respondent to immediately pay all costs incurred in the
prosecution of this case;
3. Provides any other relief the Board deems and proper.
Respectfully submitted.
STEVE CARTER
Attorney General of Indiana
A
By:
Headier C. Kennedy
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.: 26317-49A
I certify that a copy of the "Complaint" has been duly served upon the Respondent listed
below, by United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, on this
Heather C. Kennedy A
___________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE
day of
, 2008.
Schultz & Pogue, LLP
Attn: Peter Pogue
11611 N. Meridian Street, Sixite 706
Carmel, IN 46032
Mark E. Smith
13638 Elgin Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
Deputy Attomey General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, Fifth Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Telephone Number (317) 233-2351
LICENSE NUMBER: 34001845A
Iridiana Professional
I irRnsing Aggnc^
COMPLAINT
The complaint is brought against the clinical social worker license by the State of
Indiana, by counsel. Deputy Attorney General, Heather C. Kennedy, on behalf of the Office of
the Attorney General ("Petitioner"), and pursuant to Indiana Code § 25-1-7-7, Ind. Code §25-1-
5-3, Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-8 and Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-11, the Administrative Orders and
Procedures Act, Ind. Code § 4-21.5-3 et seq. and Ind. Code § 25-1-9-1 et. seq. and in support
alleges and states:
FACTS
1. Respondent's address on file with the Board is 13638 Elgin Drive, Carmel, IN
46032, and he is a duly licensed Clinical Social Worker in the State of Indiana having been
issued license number 34001845A.
2. At all time pertinent to this Complaint, Respondent practiced as a clinical social
worker at Family Tree Counseling ("Family Tree") in Carmel, Indiana. At the time of the
Exhibit "A"
On or about July 7, 2004, Magellan filed an Adverse Action Report against the
Respondent, in order to be maintained within The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank.
consiuner complaint. Respondent was the President and sole owner of Family Tree and has held
that position each year since.
3.
While acting as President of Family Tree, Respondent submitted all claims to
Magellan Healfli Services ("Magellan") in his name, while services were actually rendered by
other Family Tree employees.
4. On or about May 4, 2004, Respondent was notified by his insurance carrier,
Magellan, that all contracts and/or agreements with them were terminated due to: quality of care
concerns related to allowing an unlicensed therapist in Respondent's practice to treat a member
referred by Magellan, failure to adequately supervise the unlicensed provider, and submission of
claims to Magellan under Respondent's name for that treatment, when in fact Respondent's
subordinate rendered the services.
COUNTI
Respondent's conduct described above constitutes a violation of Indiana Code § 25-1-9-
4(a)(1)(B) in that the Respondent engaged in material deception in the course of professional
services or activities, as evidenced by Respondent submission of claims to Magellan for services
services were provided, to wit: 839 lAC l-3-4(b) The competent practice of social work and
clinical social work includes, acting within generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines
ethical principles include, birtare not limited to: NASW Ethics Code 3.05: Social workers should
establish and maintain billing practices that accurately reflect the nature and extent of services
provided and that identify who provided the service in the practice setting.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands an order against Respondent that:
1. Impose(s) the appropriate disciplinary sanction;
2. Directs Respondent to immediately pay all costs incurred in the
prosecution of this case;
3. Provides any other relief the Board deems and proper.
Respectfully submitted.
STEVE CARTER
Attorney General of Indiana
A
By:
Headier C. Kennedy
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney No.: 26317-49A
I certify that a copy of the "Complaint" has been duly served upon the Respondent listed
below, by United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, on this
Heather C. Kennedy A
_______________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE
day of
, 2008.
Schultz & Pogue, LLP
Attn: Peter Pogue
11611 N. Meridian Street, Sixite 706
Carmel, IN 46032
Mark E. Smith
13638 Elgin Drive
Carmel, IN 46032
Deputy Attomey General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, Fifth Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Telephone Number (317) 233-2351
_________________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE SOCIAL WORKER,
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
THERAPIST, AND MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELOR BOARD
CAUSE NO. 2008 BHSB 0003
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF )
FILED
)
MARK SMITH, LCSW
)
JUN 2 6 2008
)
LICENSE NO: 3400! 845A
)
Indiana Professional
Ucensin^genc^
)
STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT. STIPULATED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
The Petitioner, the State of Indiana, by Heather C. Kennedy, Deputy Attorney
General, Division of Consumer Protection ("Petitioner"), the Respondent, Mark Smith,
LCSW ("Respondent"), and Respondent's counsel, Peter Pogue of Schultz & Pogue,
LLP, signed an Agreement that purports to resolve all issues involved in the action by the
Petitioner before the Social Worker, Marriage and Family TTierapist, and Mental Health
Counselor Board ("Board") regarding Respondent's license, and that Agreement has been
submitted to the Board for approval.
The Board, after reviewing the Agreement at the June 23, 2008 meeting, now
finds it has been entered into fairly and without fraud, duress or undue influence, and is
fair and equitable between the parties. The Board hereby incorporates the Agreement as
if fully set forth herein and approves and adopts in full the Agreement as a resolution of
this matter. The Board approved this Agreement by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 against, and 0
abstaining. Incorporated into the Agreement was the consensus of both parties to the
following Stipulated Findings of Fact, Stipulated Conclusions of Law, Ultimate
Conclusions of Law and Order. The Board, hereby issues the following Stipulated
1
Respondent's address on file with the Board is <NARCOPIGS HOME>
Westfield, IN 46704 and he is a duly licensed Clinical Social Worker in the State of
#
Findings of Fact, Stipulated Conclusions of Law, Ultimate Conclusions of Law and
Order:
STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT
Indiana having been issued license nximber 34001845A.
At all time pertinent to this Complaint, Respondent practiced as a clinical
social worker at Family Tree Counseling ("Family Tree") in Carmel, Indiana. At the
time of the consumer complaint, Respondent was the President and sole owner of Family
Tree and has held that position each year since.
While acting as President of Family Tree, Respondent submitted all claims
to Magellan Health Services ("Magellan") in his name, while services were actually
rendered by other Family Tree employees.
On or about May 4, 2004, Respondent was notified by his insurance
carrier, Magellan, that all contracts and/or agreements with them were terminated due to:
quality of care concerns related to allowing an unlicensed therapist in Respondent's
practice to treat a member referred by Magellan, failure to adequately supervise the
unlicensed provider, and submission of claims to Magellan under Respondent's name for
that treatment, when in fact Respondent's subordinate rendered the services.
On or about July 7, 2004, Magellan filed an Adverse Action Report
against the Respondent, in order to be maintained within The Healthcare Integrity and
Protection Data Bank.
2
STIPULATED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent's conduct described above constitutes a violation of Indiana
Code § 25-l-9-4(a)(l){B), in that, the Respondent engaged in material deception in the
course of professional services or activities, as evidenced by Respondent submission of
claims to Magellan for services he did not render, thus failing to maintain billing
practices consistent with the manner in which services were provided, to wit: 839 lAC 1-
3-4(b) The competent practice of social work and clinical social work includes, acting
within generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines of the profession and
maintaining an awareness of personal and professional limitations. These ethical
principles include, but are not limited to: NASW Ethics Code 3.05: Social workers
should establish and maintain billing practices that accurately reflect the nature and
extent of services provided and that identify who provided the service in the practice
setting.
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent's failure to comply with the above referenced standards is cause
for disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed singly or in combination such as censure,
a letter of reprimand, probation, suspension, or a revocation of license, and a fine up to
the amount of $1000.00 per violation, as detailed at Indiana Code § 25-1-9-9.
ORDER
Based upon the above Stipulated Findings of Fact and Stipulated Conclusions of
Law, the Board issues the following Order:
The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent and the subject matter in
this disciplinary action commcnced on April 2, 2008.
The parties execute this Agreement voluntarily.
Respondent and Petitioner voluntarily waive their rights to a pubHc
hearing on the Complaint and all other proceeding in this action to which either party
may be entitled by law, including judicial appeal or review.
Petitioner agrees that the terms of this Agreement will resolve any and all
outstanding claims or allegations or potential claims or allegations relating to disciplinary
action against Respondent's license for the period between April 2, 2008 and the date of
the Final Order.
Respondent has carefully read and examined this Agreement and ftilly
understands its terms and that, subject to a final order issued by the Board, this
Agreement is a final disposition of all matters and not subject to further review.
Respondent's clinical social worker license shall be placed on
6.
INDEFINITE PROBATION. Respondent may petition the Board after six (6) months
of successfully complying with his probation for withdrawal of said probation.
During the Probationary period, Respondent's license shall be governed
by the following TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
a. Respondent shall keep the Board apprised of his home address, mailing
address and residential telephone number at all times.
b. Respondent shall keep the Board apprised of his place of employment,
employment telephone number and name of his supervisor at all times.
c. Respondent shall keep the Board informed of his occupation title and
work schedule, including the number of hours worked at all times.
4
d. Respondent shall provided a copy of all Board orders imposing discipline
or limiting practice to any social work employer who shall sign and return
a copy of such order to the Board within seven (7) days of employment or
receipt of this order.
e. Respondent shall be supervised by a Board approved supervisor twice a
month for the length of his probation to discuss ethics and supervision.
Said supervisor shall submit quarterly reports to the Board that
Respondent is in compliance with the Order.
f Respondent shall complete 50% of his Continuing Education
requirements, ten (10) hours for the 2008-2010 year in Category 1
supervision and billing.
g. Respondent shall make quarterly personal appearances before the Board
for the length of his probation. At each personal appearance. Respondent
shall inform the Board that he is supervising employees in accordance
with the applicable supervising statutes.
Respondent agrees to pay for a copy of the transcript of the presentation of
this Agreement to the Board.
It is further agreed that any information received by any other regulatory
agency that indicates non-compliance with the statutes or regulations regarding the
competent practice of a Clinical Social Worker or a violation of the Final Order, may
result in the State requesting an emergency suspension of Respondent's license, as well
as possible reinstatement of the initial action giving rise to this resolution, an Order to
Show Cause as may be issued by the Board, or a new cause of action being filed pursuant
5
to Indiana Code § 25-l-9-4(a)(10), any or all of which could lead to additional sanctions,
up to and including a revocation of Respondent's license.
10. The Parties agree to the continuing jurisdiction of the Board.
(^(/) day of June, 2008
SO ORDERED this
SOCIAL WORKER, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
THERAPIST, AND MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELOR BOARD
Byf
Fn
EKecutive^irector y
mdiana Professional LiceH^ng Agency
Copies:
Mark Smith, LCSW
<NARCOPIGS HOME>
Westfield, IN 46704
SENT CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 7006 2760 0003 4661 7414
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Schultz & Pogue, LLP
Peter Pogue
520 Indiana Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46202
SENT CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 7006 2760 0003 4661 7421
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Deputy Attorney General - Heather C. Kennedy
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, 5'*^ Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
6
BEFORE THE SOCIAL WORKER, MARRIAGE
AND FAMILY THERAPIST, AND MENTAL
HEALTH COUNSELOR BOARD OF INDIANA
CAUSE NO. 2008 BHSB 0003
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF
)
FILED
)
MARK SMITH, LCSW
)
DEC 1 I 2008
)
LICENSE NUMBER; 34001845A
)
Indian:; Profess onal
. Lics:-sirifl Anency
RESPONDENT, MARK SMITH, LCSW'S PETITION
FOR TERMINATION OF PROBATIONARY ORDER
Respondent, Mark Smith, LCSW ("Mr. Smith"), by counsel, hereby moves the Social
Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist, and Mental Health Counselor Board of Indiana for
termination of his probation as imposed by the Stipulated Findings of Fact, Stipulated
Conclusions of Law, Ultimate Conclusions of Law and Order dated June 26, 2008. In support of
this Petition, Mr. Smith states as follows:
On June 26, 2008, the Social Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist, and Mental
Health Counselor Board of Indiana issued an Order placing Mr. Smith's clinical social worker
license on indefinite probation and during said probation, Mr. Smith's license would be governed
by the terms and conditions outlined in said Order, which included not being able to terminate
probation for a minimum of six (6) months from the date of the final Order. (See Exhibit A, p. 4,
Order, 6 and f 7, Sections a-g).
Respondent has complied with all terms and conditions of the Order of the Social
Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist, and Mental Health Counselor Board and now requests
that the Board set a hearing on the issue of whether the probationary order shall be terminated.
Mr. Smith requests that the Social Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist, and
Mental Health Counselor Board set this matter for hearing at the Board's scheduled meeting on
January 26, 2009, as that will be more than six (6) months from the date of the Board's Order
imposing disciplinary sanctions.
WHEREFORE, Mark Smith, LCSW, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Social
Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist, and Mental Heahh Counselor Board of Indiana set a
hearing to determine whether the probationary order shall be terminated, and for all other just
and proper relief
Respectfully submitted,
SCHULTZ & POGUE, LLP
y tj.
Peter nT^gue, #14631^9
Attorney for Respondent,
Mark Smith, LCSW
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service of the foregoing was made by placing a copy of the same into the United States
Mail, first class postage prepaid, this S"' day of December, 2008, to:
Heather C. Kermedy
Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, S"' Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204
6
SCHULTZ & POGUE, LLP
520 Indiana Avenue
Indianapohs, IN 46202
Phone: (317) 262-1000
Fax:(317)262-9000
3
____________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE SOCIAL WORKER,
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
THERAPIST, AND MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELOR BOARD
CAUSE NO. 2008 BHSB 0003
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF )
FILED
)
MARK SMITH, LCSW
)
JUN 2 6 2008
)
LICENSE NO: 34001845A
)
Indiana Professional
)
STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT. STIPULATED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
The Petitioner, the State of Indiana, by Heather C. Kennedy, Deputy Attorney
G^eral, Division of Consumer Protection ("Petitioner"), the Respondent, Mark Smith,
LCSW ("Respondent"), and Re^ndent's counsel, Peter Pogue of Schultz & Pogue,
LLP, signed an Agreement that purports to resolve all issues involved in the action by the
Petitioner before the Social Worker, Marriage and Family Ther^ist, and Mental Health
Counselor Board ("Board") regarding Respondent's Hcwise, and that Agreement has been
submitted to the Board for approval.
The Board, after reviewing the Agreement at the June 23, 2008 meeting, now
finds it has been entered into fairly and without iraud, duress or undue influence, and is
fair and equitable between the parties. The Board hereby incorporates die Agreement as
if fully s^ forth herein and approves and adopts in full the Agreement as a resolution of
this matter. The Board approved this Agreement by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 against, and 0
abstaining. IncorpJorated into the Agreement was the consensus of both parties to the
following Stipulated Findings of Fact, Stipulated Conclusions of Law, Ultimate
Conclusions of Law and Order. The Board, herd?y issues the following Stipulated
E3ffl®rr
1
Respondent's address on file with the Board is <NARCOPIGS HOME>,
Westfield, IN 46704 and he is a duly licensed Clinical Social Worker in the State of
Indiana having been issued license number 34001845A.
While acting as President of Family Tree, Respondent submitted all claims
to Magellan Health Services ("Magellan") in his name, while services were actually
On or about May 4, 2004, Responda)t was notified by his insurance
carrier, Magellan, that all contracts and/or agreements with than were terminated due to:
quality of care concerns related to allowing an unlicensed therapist in Respondent's
practice to treat a member referred by Magellan, failure to adequately supervise the
unlicensed provider, and submission of claims to Magellan under Respondent's name for
that treatment, when in fact Respondent's subordinate rendered the services.
On or about July 7, 2004, Magellan filed an Adverse Action Rqx)rt
against the Respondent, in order to be maintained within The Healthcare Integrity and
Findings of Fact, Stipulated Conclusions of Law, Ultiinate Conclusions of Law and
Orden
STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT
2. At all time pertinent to this Complaint, Respondent practiced as a clinical
social worker at Family Tree Counseling ("Family Tree") in Carmel, Indiana. At the
time of the consumer complaint, Respondent was the President and sole owner of Family
Tree and has held that position each year since.
rendered by other Family Tree employees.
Protection Data Bank.
2
STIPULATED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
L Respondent's conduct described above constitutes a violation of Indiana
Code § 25-l-9-4{aXl)(B), in that, the Respondent engaged in material deception in the
course of professional services or activities, as evidenced by Respondent submissioo of
claims to Magellan for services he did not render, thus failing to maintain billing
practices consistent with the manner in which services were provided, to wit; 839 lAC 1-
3-4(b) The competent practice of social work and clinical social work includes, acting
within generally accepted ethical principles and Adelines of the profession and
maintaining an awareness of personal and professional limitations. "Hiese ethical
principles include, but are not limited to; NASW Ethics Code 3.05: Social woricers
should establish and maintain billing practices that accurately reflect the nature and
extent of services provided and that identify who provided the service in the practice
setting.
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent's failure to comply with die above referenced standards is cause
for disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed singly or in combination such as censure.
a letter of reprimand, probation, suspension, or a revocation of license, and a fine up to
the amount of $1000.00 per violation, as detailed at Indiana Code § 25-1-9-9.
ORDER
Based upon the above Stipulated Findings of Fact and Stipulated Conclusions of
Law, the Board issues the following Order:
1. The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent and the subject matter in
this disciplinary action commenced on April 2, 2008.
.3
Respondent has carefully read and examined this Agreement and fiilly
understands its terms and that, subject to a final order issued by the Board, this
Agreement is a final disposition of all matters and not subject to further review.
Respondent's clinical social worker license shall be placed on
INDEFINITE PROBATION. Respondent may petition the Board after six (6) months
of successfiilly complying with his probation for withdrawal of said probation.
During the Probationary period, Respondent's license shall be governed
by the following TERMS and CONDITIONS:
a. Respondent shall keep the Board apprised of his home address, mailing
address and residential telephone number at all times.
b. Respondent shall keep the Board apprised of his place of employment,
employment telephone number and name of his supervisor at all times.
c- Respondent shall keep the Board informed of his occupation title and
work schedule, including the number of hours worked at all times.
3. The parties execute this Agreement voluntarily.
4. Respondent and Petitioner voluntarily waive their rights to a public
hearing on the Complaint and all other proceeding in this action to which eidier party
may be entitled by law, including judicial appeal or review.
5. Petitioner agrees that the terms of this Agreement will resolve any and all
outstanding claims or allegations or potential claims or allegations relating to disciplinary
action against Respondent's license for the period between April 2, 2008 and the date of
the Final Order.
6.
4
d. Respondent shall provided a copy of all Board orders imposing discipline
or limiting practice to any social work employer who shall sign and return
a copy of such order to the Board within seven (7) days of employmait or
receipt of this order.
e. Respondent shall be supervised by a Board approved supervisor twice a
month for the length of his probation to discuss ethics and supervision.
Said supervisor shall submit quarterly reports to the Board that
It is fiirther agreed that any information received by any other regulatory
agency that indicates non-compliance with the statutes or regulations regarding the
competent practice of a Clinical Social Worker or a violation of the Final Order, may
result in the State requesting an emergency suspension of Respondent's license, as well
as possible reinstatement of the initial action giving rise to this resolution, an Order to
Show Cause as may be issued by the Board, or a new cause of action being filed pursuant
Respondent is in compliance with the Order.
t Respondent shall complete 50% of his Continuing Education
requirements, ten (10) hours for the 2008-2010 year in Category I
supervision and billing.
g. Respondent shall make quarterly pa:sonal appearances before the Board
for the length of his probation. At each personal appearance, Respondent
shall inform the Board that he is supervising employees in accordance
with die applicable supervising statutes.
Respondent agrees to pay for a copy of the transcript of the presentation of
8.
this Agreement to the Board.
to Indiana Code § 25-l-9-4(aX10), any or all of which could lead to additional sanctions.
up to and including a revocation of Respondent's license.
10. The Parties agree to the continuing jiirisdiction of the Board.
SO ORDERED this oK^ day of June, 2008.
SOCIAL WORKER, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
THERAPIST, AND MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELOR BOARD
By!
L.K
Fi
Executive^rector J
ttdiana Wofessional LiceiiSing Agency
Copies:
Mark Smith, LCSW
14164 Camden Lane
Westfield, IN 46704
SENT CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 7006 2760 0003 4661 7414
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Schultz & Pogue, LLP
Peter Pogue
520 Indiana Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46202
SENT CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 7006 2760 0003 4661 7421
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Deputy Attorney General - Heather C. Kennedy
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South
302 West Washington Street, s"" Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
6
______________________________________________________________________________
HERE'S THE FILING FROM DEC 2 2 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES BOARD
CAUSE NUMBER: 2016 BHSB QCQ^
FILED
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF
MARK E. SMITH, LCSW
LICENSE NUMBER; 34001845A (Active)
)
DEC 2 2 2016
)
Indiana Professional
Licensing Agency
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
The State of Indiana ("State"), by counsel. Deputy Attorney General N. Renee Gallagher,
on behalf of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, and pursuant to Ind. Code §25-1 -7-7, Ind.
Code ch. 25-1-5, Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-7, the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act, Ind,
Code ch. 4-21.5-3 and Ind. Code ch, 25-1-9, files its Complaint against the Social Worker license
of Mark E. Smith ("Respondenf), and in support, states the following:
FACTS
1. Respondent's address on file with the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency isl4164
Camden Lane, Carmel, Indiana 46074,
2. On June 25, 2015, Respondent is a Clinical Social Worker license ("LCSW") in
Indiana, under license number 34001845A and is currently active.
3. Respondent was employed at Family Tree Counseling Associates ("Family Tree")
located at 11350 Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana where Respondent was the Director from
approximately 1989 to present except for a leave of absence from work from approximately May
22, 2015 through July 23, 2015 while he was enrolled in in-patient treatment. In his absence,
Andrew Holzman acted as Interim Director for Family Tree.
4. Respondent's leave of absence from Family Tree was precipitated by several
events.
In the letter and consumer complaint, the LCSWs provided that a former client of
Family Tree notified the LCSWs that the client had received an email from Respondent asking for
the client to file a complaint against the co-worker of Respondent's fiance. In the email, many
details and allegations are made against the co-worker, such as referring to the co-worker as a "sex
addict," and details of the affair.
receipt of the email could possibly cause a "re-traumatizing" of someone who had been in an
affair, was sex addict, or who was in a relationship affected by similar behaviors.
On July 29, 2015, the OAG received a second consumer complaint from a former
client of Respondent who alleged that, while in marriage counseling as a couple with Respondent,
On or about April 26, 2015, Respondent learned that his fiance of approximately
six or seven years was engaged in a sexual relationship with a co-worker.
6. Respondent continued to practice from April 26,2015 until approximately May 22,
2015.
On June 1, 2015, Respondent sent an email to approximately 600 or more clients
and business associates of Family Tree contained in the business' database asking that each
recipient send a written complaint to the employer of his fiance's and demand that the co-worker
be fired due to the affair Respondent learned about between Respondent's fianc6 and her co-
worker.
8. On June 15, 2015, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General ("OAG") and later
on August 6, 2015, a consumer complaint from two former Licensed Clinical Social Workers
("LCSWs") of Family Tree.
10.
The LCSWs reported this information to the OAG as an alleged acts of
unprofessional behavior, a "blatant" abuse of client information and both were concerned that
11.
Respondent hired his wife to work at Family Tree while the couple was continuing to receive
marriage counseling from Respondent.
12. In response to the two consumer complaints, dated August 18,2015 and September
6, 2015, Respondent admits to sending the June 1, 2015 email to over 600 clients, former clients
and business contacts and admits to hiring his Ms. Hall, his former client.
13. In his responses to the consumer complaints, Respondent also admits that he was
not fit to practice after learning of his fiance's affair in April 2015 however. Respondent continued
to practice until May 22, 2015.
14. Respondent, in his September 6, 2015 response, also provides that Ms. Hall is not
licensed but is an "unlicensed" intern who charges thirty (30) dollars per session and is supervised
by Respondent and another practitioner in his office, Mr. Holzman, the interim director at Family
Tree.
15. A review of licensing records at the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency for the
individuals listed as providing counseling services in Respondent's office reveals that at least four
do not have an active Indiana license to provide counseling services as a licensed social worker,
licensed mental health counselor or other license issued by the Board.
COUNT I
14. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
15. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(3) in that Respondent violated state statute or rule regulating the profession, in that.
Respondent failed to comply with 839 lAC l-3-4(b), as Respondent failed to act within the
generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines of the profession, when he engaged in a dual
relationship with a client by soliciting and then hiring the client into his practice during the
period of time Respondent was providing marriage counseling to the client/employee and her
spouse.
COUNT II
Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
16.
17. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(3) in that, Respondent violated a state statute or rule regulating the profession, in
that. Respondent failed to comply with 839 lAC l-3-4(b)(6), as Respondent failed to act within
the generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines of the profession and the National
Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics and Ethical Responsibilities ("NASW") 1.06,
when he sent an email to approximately 600 or more email addresses of former and current
clients of his practice as well as business associates for his personal gain by requesting that the
recipients of the email file complaints against the co-worker who had an affair with
Respondent's fiance and referencing the affair and sexual addiction in the email.
COUNT III
18. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
19. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(3), in that, he violated 839 lAC l-3-4(b) and NASW 3.01 and NASW 5.01, when
Respondent employing and/or supervising persons who did not possess active licenses issued by
the Board to provide counseling services in Indiana.
COUNT IV
20. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
21. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
GREGORY F. ZGELLER
Attorney ^eneialM Indiana
ibW: 1 ?58-98
N. Rehee ^
Deputy y^ft^ei^General
Attorney
§25-l-9-4(a)(13), in that, Respondent assisted several persons in committing acts of practicing
without valid Indiana licenses which would be grounds for disciplinary action by the Board.
COUNT V
22. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
23. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(4)(B), in that. Respondent failed to keep abreast of current theory and professional
practice when he continued to work, although Respondent was unfit to work, and provide
counseling services during the period of April 26, 2015 through May 22, 2015.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands an order against the Respondent, that:
1. Imposes the appropriate disciplinary sanction;
2. Directs Respondent to immediately pay all of the cost incurred in the
prosecution of this case;
3. Directs Respondent to pay a fee of Five Dollars ($5.00) to be deposited into the
Health Records and Personal Identifying Information Protection Trust Fund
pursuant to Ind. Code § 4-6-14-10(b); and
4. Provide any other relief the Board deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted.
ley
By:
90-49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing "Administrative Complaint" has been served upon the
Respondent listed below, by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, on this 22"'' day of
December, 2016.
Mark Smith, LCSW
14164 Camden Lane
Carmel, Indiana 46074
Mike Roth
Brett Clayton
Eichhorn & Eichhorn, LLP
9101 North Meridian Road
Suite 401
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
N./Renee Gallagher\_^
Deputy Attome5njeneral
Attorney No.v2590-4y
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2770
Phone: (317) 234-7114
renee. gallagher@atg. in. gov?
COURT LINK: http://www.in.gov/apps/pla/litigation/pdfs.aspx?lic=34001845A
Mark Edward Smith
Address Information
Carmel IN 46032-5318
License Information
License No: 34001845A
Profession: Behavioral Health Board
License Type: Clinical Social Worker
Obtained By Method: Endorsement
Issue Date: 3/15/1993
Expiration Date: 4/1/2018
License Status: Active
Previous Action
Litigation Pending
Probation
Previous Action - YES
Violations
Violation: 25.1.9.4a.3 Description: Statute, Rule, or Regulation Violation
Date of Board Action: 12/22/2016 Sanction: Litigation Pending Cause Number: 2016BHSB0029
Related Licenses
No Prerequisite Information
The following PDFs were found for the license number 34001845A.
Date Type
04/02/2008 Complaint 71k
06/23/2008 Findings of Fact and Order 115k
06/26/2008 Findings of Fact and Order 115k
12/11/2008 Motions 156k
02/03/2009 Findings of Fact and Order 64k
12/22/2016 Complaint 267k
SAME DOCS AS BEFORE. THE CASE LOOKS TO STILL BE PENDING.
FIRST LINK. http://www.in.gov/pla/3119.htm
SECOND LINK. http://www.in.gov/apps/pla/litigation/pdfs.aspx?lic=34001845A
AND IF THEY LET NARCOPIG OFF THE HOOK FOR WHAT HE'S CLEARLY GUILTY OF THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE HIM INNOCENT CUZ THERE'S LOTS OF PROOF HE DID A LOT OF NARC BORDERLINE CHEATING SEX ABUSING SCAMMING AND FINANCIAL FRAUD BULLSHIT FOR A LONG ASS TIME.
BEFORE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES BOARD
CAUSE NUMBER: 2016 BHSB QCQ^
IN THE MATTER OF THE LICENSE OF
MARK E. SMITH, LCSW
LICENSE NUMBER; 34001845A (Active)
)DEC 2 2 2016
Indiana Professional
Licensing Agency
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
The State of Indiana ("State"), by counsel. Deputy Attorney General N. Renee Gallagher,
on behalf of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, and pursuant to Ind. Code §25-1 -7-7, Ind.
Code ch. 25-1-5, Ind. Code § 25-23.6-2-7, the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act, Ind,
Code ch. 4-21.5-3 and Ind. Code ch, 25-1-9, files its Complaint against the Social Worker license
of Mark E. Smith ("Respondenf), and in support, states the following:
FACTS
1. Respondent's address on file with the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency isl4164
Camden Lane, Carmel, Indiana 46074,
2. On June 25, 2015, Respondent is a Clinical Social Worker license ("LCSW") in
Indiana, under license number 34001845A and is currently active.
3. Respondent was employed at Family Tree Counseling Associates ("Family Tree")
located at 11350 Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana where Respondent was the Director from
approximately 1989 to present except for a leave of absence from work from approximately May
22, 2015 through July 23, 2015 while he was enrolled in in-patient treatment. In his absence,
Andrew Holzman acted as Interim Director for Family Tree.
4. Respondent's leave of absence from Family Tree was precipitated by several events. In the letter and consumer complaint, the LCSWs provided that a former client of Family Tree notified the LCSWs that the client had received an email from Respondent asking for the client to file a complaint against the co-worker of Respondent's fiance. In the email, many
details and allegations are made against the co-worker, such as referring to the co-worker as a "sex
addict," and details of the affair.
receipt of the email could possibly cause a "re-traumatizing" of someone who had been in an
affair, was sex addict, or who was in a relationship affected by similar behaviors. On July 29, 2015, the OAG received a second consumer complaint from a former client of Respondent who alleged that, while in marriage counseling as a couple with Respondent,
On or about April 26, 2015, Respondent learned that his fiance of approximately six or seven years was engaged in a sexual relationship with a co-worker.
6. Respondent continued to practice from April 26,2015 until approximately May 22,
2015.
On June 1, 2015, Respondent sent an email to approximately 600 or more clients
and business associates of Family Tree contained in the business' database asking that each
recipient send a written complaint to the employer of his fiance's and demand that the co-worker
be fired due to the affair Respondent learned about between Respondent's fianc6 and her co-
worker.
8. On June 15, 2015, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General ("OAG") and later
on August 6, 2015, a consumer complaint from two former Licensed Clinical Social Workers
("LCSWs") of Family Tree.
10.The LCSWs reported this information to the OAG as an alleged acts of
unprofessional behavior, a "blatant" abuse of client information and both were concerned that
11.Respondent hired his wife to work at Family Tree while the couple was continuing to receive
marriage counseling from Respondent.
12. In response to the two consumer complaints, dated August 18,2015 and September
6, 2015, Respondent admits to sending the June 1, 2015 email to over 600 clients, former clients
and business contacts and admits to hiring his Ms. Hall, his former client.
13. In his responses to the consumer complaints, Respondent also admits that he was
not fit to practice after learning of his fiance's affair in April 2015 however. Respondent continued
to practice until May 22, 2015.
14. Respondent, in his September 6, 2015 response, also provides that Ms. Hall is not
licensed but is an "unlicensed" intern who charges thirty (30) dollars per session and is supervised
by Respondent and another practitioner in his office, Mr. Holzman, the interim director at Family
Tree.
15. A review of licensing records at the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency for the
individuals listed as providing counseling services in Respondent's office reveals that at least four
do not have an active Indiana license to provide counseling services as a licensed social worker,
licensed mental health counselor or other license issued by the Board.
COUNT I
14. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
15. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(3) in that Respondent violated state statute or rule regulating the profession, in that.
Respondent failed to comply with 839 lAC l-3-4(b), as Respondent failed to act within the
generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines of the profession, when he engaged in a dual
relationship with a client by soliciting and then hiring the client into his practice during the
period of time Respondent was providing marriage counseling to the client/employee and her
spouse.
COUNT II
Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
16.
17. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(3) in that, Respondent violated a state statute or rule regulating the profession, in
that. Respondent failed to comply with 839 lAC l-3-4(b)(6), as Respondent failed to act within
the generally accepted ethical principles and guidelines of the profession and the National
Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics and Ethical Responsibilities ("NASW") 1.06,
when he sent an email to approximately 600 or more email addresses of former and current
clients of his practice as well as business associates for his personal gain by requesting that the
recipients of the email file complaints against the co-worker who had an affair with
Respondent's fiance and referencing the affair and sexual addiction in the email.
COUNT III
18. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
19. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(3), in that, he violated 839 lAC l-3-4(b) and NASW 3.01 and NASW 5.01, when
Respondent employing and/or supervising persons who did not possess active licenses issued by
the Board to provide counseling services in Indiana.
COUNT IV
20. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
21. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
GREGORY F. ZGELLER
Attorney ^eneialM Indiana
ibW: 1 ?58-98
N. Rehee ^
Deputy y^ft^ei^General
Attorney
§25-l-9-4(a)(13), in that, Respondent assisted several persons in committing acts of practicing
without valid Indiana licenses which would be grounds for disciplinary action by the Board.
COUNT V
22. Paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) are incorporated by reference herein.
23. Respondent's conduct as described above constitutes a violation of Ind. Code
§25-l-9-4(a)(4)(B), in that. Respondent failed to keep abreast of current theory and professional
practice when he continued to work, although Respondent was unfit to work, and provide
counseling services during the period of April 26, 2015 through May 22, 2015.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner demands an order against the Respondent, that:
1. Imposes the appropriate disciplinary sanction;
2. Directs Respondent to immediately pay all of the cost incurred in the
prosecution of this case;
3. Directs Respondent to pay a fee of Five Dollars ($5.00) to be deposited into the
Health Records and Personal Identifying Information Protection Trust Fund
pursuant to Ind. Code § 4-6-14-10(b); and
4. Provide any other relief the Board deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted.