It says something when a psychologist facing an investigation is ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination. And refuses to do so.
That'll get your license suspended.
When I read the opinion, I wondered whether the psychologist represented himself. Because the opinion says things like this:
"Fettgather challenges the trial court on a number of grounds . . . . While many of his arguments are
difficult to discern, Fettgather appears to argue that he should have been afforded the
opportunity to challenge the propriety of the Board’s order requiring him to submit to a
psychological evaluation under section 820 at the Board’s revocation hearing, despite his
noncompliance with that order. . . .
He further argues this court should “overturn” Lee, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th 793,
which was relied upon by the trial court in upholding the Board’s license revocation order. While we do not have the authority to “overturn” Lee, we are not bound by that
decision.
We will not address arguments not separately stated under a separate heading as
noncompliant with California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B). (See T.P. v. T.W.
(2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1428, review denied (2011) 2011 Cal. LEXIS 3990 [declining to
consider undeveloped argument not delineated under separate heading].)"
But, no, Mr. Fettgather was indeed represented by an attorney on appeal, Bruce Ebert. An attorney who has had his own disciplinary issues.
Apparently Mr. Fettgather is a fairly popular professor at Mission College as well. Though, in the future, the lesson he might want to teach his students is that when you're ordered to submit to a psychiatric exam, you should follow the order. Lest bad things happen.
