Originally published: . Volume 9, No. 4. Source pages: 2.
Prosecutors by Times publisher, J. Nelson
I reported on some of the facts of what happened to Beverly Stubblefield in the March issue (Psychology Times, Vol 9, No 3). Her story adds to my concerns about today’s “prosecutors” and if we have slipped off into a social dynamic that is dangerously cooking under the surface of our society.
I present below some of my opinions about what happened to Beverly (and the others) noting that I have no legal training at all. I do have, however, a pocket copy of the Constitution. Several copies as a matter of fact.
First, by way of introduction, I will say that I am a bit taken back by the lack of critical-thinking displayed in the trial transcripts I reviewed. This might be because by the time of the trial, there was no more “investigation,” but only “prosecution,” and the motivated reasoning overwhelmed coherent themes emerging that could then organize the facts or test them by logical analysis.
Of central importance to this was the charge of “conspiracy,” which is used for drug lords, terrorists and organized crime bosses. This charge empowers the government to “cut the legs out from under the defendants,” and they did this to Beverly by seizing her house, bank accounts, retirement and cash. She had to plead guilty because she had no way of defending herself. Neither did the others.
The government framed and primed this idea of big-time crooks, right from the beginning. The first thing any of us heard was a sensationalized press release: “… $25.2 Million Fraud Scheme…” and “…a large-scale Medicare Fraud takedown…” The names of the attorneys involved were prominent in the news release and they congratulated their team, called the “ Medicare Fraud Strike Force.”
I know that the government’s priming and framing worked, because it worked on me. I immediately assumed guilt because the news release seemed to say so. I even avoided reporting on it, because I believed what I read. Shame on me.
The Hesson companies were not “large-scale” anything. The company was by standard measures, a “small business” with yearly revenues more around $2.8M and an even less impressive profit considering the 20 or 30 employees, whose payroll could cost 80% of revenues.
The prosecution seemed to hang the defendants on the total number of “units” of testing being billed, and a few of what Dr. Ralph Dreger called, “the extraordinary case of one,” where some elderly person had been evaluated a few days before they passed away or someone too cognitively impaired to complete a test, was evaluated.
The prosecutors made hay with these examples, anchoring the concepts of fraudulent work––some type of nest of 20+ greedy, psychopathic psychologists participating in overt, organized crime. This is an extremely low probability event, low enough to be virtually impossible, sort of like pigs flying.
I do think that Beverly’s Constitutional rights were violated. I have no legal training but the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th protects due process, the 6th ensures Miranda, and the 8th prohibits excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.
Beverly was interviewed by the FBI without being informed that she was being charged or investigated. She was not read her Miranda rights. She was never informed that she had been indicted. She learned of it when a patient told her they’d read about her in the newspaper.
In the trial transcripts there were many charts and facts presented that defendants did not understand or did not know where the data came from. There were also charts that were shown to be calculated wrong or data displayed incorrectly.
Her punishment having to do with “restitution” seems excessive and cruel. She made $89K for five years. Her restitution comes to $1,733,378 more than she ever received. In fact, all the defendants’ restitution was set at more than was billed, so they are even “paying back” what Medicare didn’t pay. How is that reasonable?
How is it that she and the other defendants got a fair trial? The prosecutors were motivated to create the charge of “conspiracy” because it extends their powers and they are rewarded with the seized resources. With the “conspiracy” charge, the psychologists never had a chance at a defense. Also, I saw in the transcripts what I consider evidence of the Stockholm syndrome in John Teal and to a lesser extent Beverly––understandable since their lives depended on it. Both have been destroyed professionally and financially.
It is ridiculous to think that Beverly got together and “conspired” with other psychologists to break the law. If these psychologists were “conspiring” they were the worse criminals ever, because their billing practices waved red flags right in the face of Medicare. I didn’t see any evidence that anyone tried to hide anything. Personally, I believe that Rodney Hesson probably believed he was being a good entrepreneur, providing an innovative, low-cost service, and meeting an important need. Apparently the nursing homes thought so.
Despite some screwball billing being submitted to Medicare (you have to ask who had the professional death wish) I wasn’t at all persuaded that “not medically necessary” meant fraudulent, which was part of prosecution’s case. Especially given these services were ordered by physicians.
When my dad was in his last years I took him to a physical therapist who after six visits termed him to “not be improving” so that he did not qualify for treatment. I told the therapist that we’d just pay ourselves, but apparently that was not allowed, either. When my father was depressed and causing trouble, they put him on Geodon and turned him into a brittle diabetic, and there was never any comprehensive evaluation. I would have appreciated one, a great deal.
Overall, I’m saying the same as Judge Caldwell said––I don’t care what Beverly did or didn’t do, she deserved a Constitutionally valid process, fair trial and if found guilty, reasonable punishment.
[Julie Nelson is a licensed psychologist, journalist, organizational consultant, and publisher of the Times. She also holds other various positions in the community. However, her opinions here are those of her own, and do not represent any group or association. She and the Times receive no compensation other than paid advertizing. Email her at drj@drjulienelson.com, ––she welcomes feedback.]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.