Using the title of Dr. with a CA state approved doctorate

In most states I feel that your cohort would not be in violation of either state licensure statutes nor of professional association ethical mandates.

What he states is indeed accurate and not deceptive to most reasonable people. By providing the MSW licensure in your state and the Psychologist licensure in California; he makes a distinction about his qualifications in each jurisdiction.

He has an earned doctorate and has every right to list that credential on his business card. As long as he does not refer to himself as a psychololgist I think he satisfies licensure and ethical standards in every state to which I am aware.

Contrary to an earlier poster, there are lots of mental health practitioners with PhDs who refer to themselves as Dr. As long as they do not list MD, most people will not confuse the two (medical doctors with psychological practitioners or counselors).

 

Again, no he doesn't. The law in Indiana is clear:

Then one or more of three criteria must be met:

1. RA or professional accrediting agency recognized by the USDoE or Council on Postsecondary Accreditation;

2. A religious seminary, institute, college, or university whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identify the religous character of the educational program; or

3. Operated and supported by a governmental agency; or meets the requirements approved by...

Then a list of professions is listed.

 

The state of Florida statute regarding to this matter states that if one does not hold an RA or religious oriented doctorate that in fact they cannot refer to themselves as doctor.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0817/Sec567.HTM

 

I don't play a lawyer on TV but...

I am one.

You know, the first question I'd ask myself if I were trying to make a case against this psychologist is, "What was HIS purpose in listing the degree?"

Is he trying to claim to be something he isn't? Maybe. He's trying, or so it seems to me, to claim to be "a psychologist, you know, just not licensed here."

I am troubled because the reason for making the claim is (perhaps) to try and imply that he is something more than a "mere" social worker, which, in his state, he certainly ISN'T. Perhaps he's trying to convey that, as "a psychologist, you know, but for the minor detail of not being licensed HERE", he will somehow offer services that a "mere" MSW cannot.

Maybe.

Then again, his card DOES go some distance to be perfectly accurate...

I don't know. If a client asked me whether this is a good idea, I'd say, "No." but then lawyers usually give the most conservative advice possible. This is a close case, I think.

 

I'm curious

(sorry to go off on a tangent here)

So, the information I recieved today is correct, at least in a legal sense.

There is a well known Martial Arts guy (martial arts for peace, guy) who has a "doctorate" in Health and Human Services from Columbia Pacific University. Apparently earned well before the law shut down the place and called it a degree mill. What I mean is that there was, perhaps, when he was enrolled, a degree of rigor involved (just to give him the benefit of the doubt).

He writes dozens of books with his "Dr." right there on the cover. He does many many hundreds of seminars, several of which are in the state where he resides, FLORIDA. In every case, he sells his expertise and ideas through the use of this non RA or NA, formerly-state approved-but-now-degree-mill Doctorate.

According to the link above, he is continually committing a class one felony. And those who are involved with his enterprise are also liable.

Am I right, or way off base here.

 

Re: I'm curious

This will sound goofy but it is not: Is there an exemption from regulations of the title "Dr." for entertainers such as "Dr. Dre"? Wouldn't a person like the one that Jodokk is describing be able to hide behind a gray area like this?

 

This is bigger than I thought . . .


See the discussion in:
http://www.aasect.org/NEWS/CS%20Oct%2005%20-%20FINAL.pdf

 

Re: Re: I'm curious

Or what about "the Love Doctor"?

 

Undate of legality

According to postings from Simon & Cliffton it appears that the states of Florda and Indiana prohibit the use of state-approved but non-RA or NA doctorates from other states as the basis for using the title doctor in propmotional materials such as business cards unless they are from religious institutions.

Based on discussions from a fairly recent ethics course, it still appears that an earned doctorate from such a school is both legally and ethically acceptable in most states.

Even in the states of Indiana and Florida, I feel a person could still list the fact that they were licensed as a psychologist in the state of California on their business card as long as they also note that in their current state of residence they are licensed as a social worker.

Interesting discussion.

Thanks gentlemen.

 

Re: Undate of legality

I don't think so in FL. However, so long as one doesn't engage in consumer services, then they can list them.

 

Re: I'm curious

Thought John Gray lived in CA and didn't know he was a martial arts expert.

 

Re: Re: Undate of legality

In Indiana, that is.

 

And what is Dr. Hook's basis for calling hinself "doctor"?

 

It is illegal to use an unaccredited degree under certain circumstances in more than a couple states. It is more like six or eight states that now have laws making some uses of unaccredited degrees illegal. About five years ago it was ONE! So this seems to be a definite trend.

Another point that seems to be missed is that the only really significant difference within the category of unaccredited schools is whether or not the school will soon be accredited or not. In other words, state approval, state licensed, etc are primarily just games played by various diploma mills and holders of questionable degrees to try and minimize the importance of accreditation or to confuse uninformed people into thinking that something is accredited when in fact it is not.

Before people jump on this post to say, "well what about reputable unaccredited versus diploma mills". I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about generally accepted recognition of academic institutions and that means accreditation. Also we've seen too many examples where diplomas from so-called "reputable" unaccredited schools have blown up on holders of these degrees as if they were a time bomb from an out-and-out diploma mill.

 

Dr.

And that Gene Simmons feller seems to think he's the "Doctor of Love".

But seriously, this guy...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0834804743/qid=1136423605/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/104-9928008-9191919?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Not John Gray but a classmate at CPU. We discussed this in a much earlier post, but the issue now is whether the guy, according to the Florida statuates, is actually committing a felony.

He lives in the state, his main selling point, (his only selling point) is the fact that he is a Ph.D. This is the basis of his credibility, not his martial arts ability. And he has won several awards for his books. Not my cup of tea, but he is respected. Hell, the University of Connecticut has a special collection of his written works, I'm amazed at how far a fake doctorate can get you.

Sign me up. This legitimate way is a bitch!

I guess, no time bomb for this guy cause he's doing his own thing? Still, it's a bit fraudulent, right?

 

Florida was the first state to pass a law making the use of unaccredited degrees illegal within the state. Unfortunately the law was declared unenforcible by the Florida Supreme Court due to a flaw in the way that it was written. It is still a law on the books. The only real purpose that it probably serves in its current state is things like if someone had their employment terminated because of an unaccredited degree, I would think that the lawyers for the employer would reference the law and possibly get the lawsuit dismissed.

Also IIRC, the law states that claiming an unaccredited PhD is a misdemeanor not a felony.

 

Whether or not you want to talk about it, it's still a legitimate and defensible objection to your first assertion.

I think that's simply false.

That's circular reasoning. You are building your conclusion into your premises.

If you are worried about explosions, you'll just love this:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1a8f1dd80dff6ec086256abf006f37b2!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=2

 

Different contexts, at least from my point of view.

The question is, using the title of Dr with an unaccredited degree, can it get one into trouble? Even though the school is state approved/licensed, the degree can still blow up like a time bomb. For example, a Google search on California Coast University will find multiple articles of a CA approved doctorate exploding on someone. CCU was CA approved and it was a real reputable school, IMHO. So, in those examples, the CCU degree seemed no better than a St. Regis University degree would have been.

I'll let the FAA worry about those kinds of explosions. When using the title of Dr., I suggest that the safest use is by people holding accredited degrees. Unaccredited degrees can blow up even if they are CA state approved.

Have fun,
Bill

 

One of the problems I have with such laws is there is an inherent assumption that all graduates from regionally accredited schools received a quality education and are competent in their respective fields, with is flawed.

Secondly, laws like this categorize all unaccredited schools as mills, which is flawed.

Third, there needs to be a way to evaluate each unaccredited school rather than generalizing they are all worthless.

Is a school like Heidelberg Theological Seminary a mill just because it is unaccredited?

This school is an official training ground for ministerial candidates of the Reformed Church in the United States.