The Guarantee, the Vanity Board, and the Missing Ethics Hours
Dr. Henry Kim has held a Maryland psychology license for 22 years. His renewal is due in 30 days. He has completed 24 continuing education hours in the past two years, all in neurofeedback, and none in ethics. His website says: “PTSD cured in 4 sessions-100% success, guaranteed.” It also calls him “board-certified” based on a $99 online certificate from an organization that does not require an exam, and offers a 10% fee discount to clients who post a five-star Google review. He charges $75 for “records retrieval” plus $2 per page and does not mention the fee in his informed-consent form. He has begun treating a 6-year-old for selective mutism although his training and experience are with adults. He asks whether he can renew, whether the website is acceptable, and whether the records fee and review discount are permissible.
1. Can Dr. Kim renew with 24 CE hours and no ethics hours, and is he competent to treat the 6-year-old?
Read the worked answer
Maryland requires 30 continuing education hours per two-year renewal period, including Board-required ethics hours; 24 hours with none in ethics is deficient. Dr. Kim cannot truthfully attest to completion and should not renew on the assumption that the Board will waive the deficit. He should complete the missing hours, including ethics, before submitting the renewal, and keep certificates. Separately, competence is a legal and ethical requirement. Treating a 6-year-old with selective mutism is outside his training and experience. He must obtain appropriate training and supervision or refer the child. If he continues without competence, he risks Board discipline under the Psychology Act and APA Standard 2.01. He should document his competence plan.
2. What is wrong with the website claims, and what should Dr. Kim do?
Read the worked answer
Advertising must not be false, misleading, or deceptive. “PTSD cured in 4 sessions-100% success, guaranteed” is a guarantee of cure that cannot be substantiated and is likely misleading. “Board-certified” based on a $99 online certificate from a non-examining organization is misleading if it implies specialty board certification recognized by the profession. Dr. Kim should remove the guarantee, describe his services accurately, and either substantiate the certification or drop the claim. He should also ensure the website complies with Maryland advertising rules and APA Standard 5.01. He should retain evidence for any factual claim. Correcting the site promptly is mitigation, not a cure.
3. Are the records fee and the Google-review discount permissible?
Read the worked answer
A records-retrieval fee is permitted only if it is reasonable and disclosed in advance. $75 plus $2 per page may exceed actual cost; Maryland law and Board rules limit fees that impede access to records, and the fee should be in the informed-consent form. The review discount is more serious: offering a fee discount for a five-star Google review is a deceptive business practice that buys positive testimonials and compromises informed consent. Reviews should be solicited without conditioning treatment or payment. Dr. Kim should withdraw the offer, revise his informed consent and fee schedule, and not retaliate against clients who decline. He should document the changes.