Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner Amy Thompson testifies to years of therapy and medication as Board of Psychology hears reinstatement case
Summary
At a California Board of Psychology hearing in Riverside, Dr. Amy Thompson testified she has engaged in sustained psychotherapy and psychiatric care since 2010 and accepted responsibility for boundary violations that led to her 2007 license surrender. The Attorney General urged caution; the board deferred decision to closed session.
Dr. Amy Thompson told the California Board of Psychology on Nov. 6 that she has been in weekly psychotherapy for roughly 15 years, maintained psychiatric care and accepted full responsibility for the boundary violations that led her to surrender her license in 2007.
Judge Thomas Heller, presiding over the petition hearing, heard opening arguments from the petitioner’s attorney, Bruce Ebert, who described Thompson’s post‑discipline treatment and professional activity as “methodical” rehabilitation. Rebecca Smith, deputy attorney general, summarized the accusation and urged the board that its primary duty is public protection, saying the petitioner must establish rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.
Why it matters: The Board must weigh the nature of Thompson’s misconduct, the length and specificity of her rehabilitation steps, and whether conditions — psychological evaluation, supervised practice, continuing education and monitoring — can adequately protect patients if the license is restored.
Thompson described continuing clinical work in non‑licensed roles, teaching at Palomar College and volunteer crisis‑line counseling. Under questioning she acknowledged the misconduct, told the board she was ‘‘embarrassed, humiliated, ashamed’’ and said, ‘‘I accept the responsibility. I was wrong.’’ She answered detailed questions about ongoing supervision plans, red‑flag recognition and how she would avoid repeating prior errors.
Deputy Attorney General Smith emphasized the seriousness of the underlying facts in the accusation and urged the board to require substantial terms and conditions if any relief is considered; she said petitioners bear a high burden to show rehabilitation and argued that many of Thompson’s character letters were undated or not specific to the disciplinary claim. Attorney Ebert countered that Thompson’s long‑term adherence to therapy and medication, ongoing supervised clinical activity and a willingness to accept onerous conditions support reinstatement.
The Board closed the hearing record and moved to deliberate in closed session under Government Code §11126; no decision was announced in open session. The Board also noted that any reinstatement would likely include mandated monitoring, psychological evaluation and conditions intended to protect patients.
