New Jersey Psychologist L. Barry Helfmann Loses Appeal of License Suspension

June 5, 2020

A prominent psychologist from Warren (New Jersey) has lost an appeal challenging the suspension of his license after the state found he exposed confidential information of his clients.

In August 2018, the license of L. Barry Helfmann, who was a psychologist at Short Hills Associates in Clinical Psychology, was suspended for two years by the state Board of Psychological Examiners and he was ordered to pay $110,542 in attorney fees.

The board barred Helfmann from practicing during the first year but stayed the second one-year suspension allowing him to resume practice on probation, with conditions. The board also imposed a $10,000 civil penalty.

During the court hearings, the Attorney General's Office presented the testimony of one of Helfmann's former patients and an expert.

Helfmann presented the testimony of an administrative assistant at his office and an expert. He also introduced letters from numerous colleagues and professional acquaintances attesting to his distinguished career, professionalism, ethics and personal integrity.

The complaint

The complaint against Helfmann included five counts: failing to take reasonable measures to protect confidentiality of his patients' private health information; failing to maintain permanent records that accurately reflected patient contact for treatment purposes; failing to maintain records of professional quality; failing to timely release records requested by a patient; and failing to properly instruct and supervise temporary staff concerning patient confidentiality and record maintenance.

The proofs provided by the Attorney General's Office that Helfmann provided confidential patient information to his medical practice's attorneys were "undisputed."

The information included codes for the patients' diagnoses, readily decoded through internet sources, and either codes for the treatment provided or identification of the actual treatment, according to court documents.

There was no dispute this information was confidential, according to court documents.

When new patients consulted his medical practice, they were required to sign numerous documents, including documents containing representations the office would protect patient confidentiality.

True bills

If a patient failed to pay their bill, Helfmann's medical practice decided to send the bill to its collection attorneys. He was able to provide the attorney with either of two forms: a transaction ledger or a true bill.

The transaction ledger included only the patient's name, date of service, amount charged, and the "billable party."

In contrast, a true bill included the same information plus Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) codes.

CPT codes referenced the treatment provided and often followed the identified treatment, "psychotherapy."

DSM codes referred to the patient's psychological disturbance. A DSM code was a diagnosis.

Helfmann's billing manager provided the medical practice's collection attorneys with the true bill rather than the transaction ledger, according to court documents. When the attorneys filed the collection complaint, they attached a copy of the true bill containing the CPT and DSM codes.

Helfmann's former patient testified that when he learned the collection attorney had attached a true bill to the complaint, he filed a counterclaim.

Helfmann "refused to instruct his attorney to replace the true bill attached to the complaint with a transaction ledger," so the patient retained an attorney, who filed a motion to compel substitution of a transaction ledger for a true bill, according to court documents.

The trial court granted the motion, first as to the complaint filed by the collection attorney against the former patient, and then to all such complaints electronically or physically filed by the collection attorney.

Legal advice

More than 80 complaints requiring substitution or redaction were identified during the hearing, according to court documents. Twenty-two such complaints were admitted into evidence. The complaints were not restricted to adult patients but included children as well, so the confidential information concerning the children was disclosed, even though they were not the parties responsible for paying the bills from Helfmann's medical practice.

Helfmann did not dispute the DSM and CPT codes were confidential, or that his medical practice provided true bills to its collection attorneys, or that the attorneys attached true bills to collection complaints filed in Superior Court.

Rather, Helfmann testified that he relied on legal advice about what information collection attorneys required from the medical practice, according to court records. He also denied any knowledge that the attorneys were attaching true bills to the complaints they filed.

He said that when his former patient asked him to remove or redact the true bills, he told the collection attorney to do so, but the collection attorney refused unless the patient withdrew his counterclaim.

"Dr. Helfmann ultimately admitted that for twenty-five or more years he had been providing information concerning patients' diagnoses and treatment to collection attorneys," the appellate court wrote in its ruling. "His defense was that he acted on the advice of counsel."

The appellate court noted that it understands Helfmann's reputation was at stake, but also said that his approach to the legal caused the state to spend considerable time and effort that was needless and unnecessary" and the $110,542 fee was appropriate.

Source: Nick Muscavage, “Warren psychologist loses appeal challenging license suspension,” Bridgewater Courier, June 4, 2020. URL: https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/courts/2020/06/04/warren-nj-psychologist-loses-appeal-challenging-license-suspension/3133971001/