{
  "id": 716965,
  "name": "Glen GARES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGIST EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gares v. New Mexico Board of Psychologist Examiners",
  "decision_date": "1990-10-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 18846",
  "first_page": "589",
  "last_page": "591",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "110 N.M. 589"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "798 P.2d 190"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5364967
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "137"
        },
        {
          "page": "471"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.M. 464",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1555054
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465"
        },
        {
          "page": "496"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/97/0464-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 355,
    "char_count": 4925,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.02629110809163005
    },
    "sha256": "9d1907a97af92d70d90c61223ad80f2b4c91888e2e54f019dde4b40b76893f46",
    "simhash": "1:8b3cec04005620cc",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:30.469339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "RANSOM and MONTGOMERY, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Glen GARES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGIST EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSOSA, Chief Justice.\nPetitioner-appellant, Glen Gares, Ph.D., appeals the district court\u2019s order affirming the revocation of Gares\u2019 psychologist certificate following a hearing by the New Mexico Board of Psychologist Examiners. Gares appealed the Board\u2019s decision to district court, and that court affirmed the Board\u2019s decision. On appeal, we affirm the district court\u2019s order dated September 29, 1989, affirming the decision of the Board.\nOn appeal the facts are undisputed. Gares on several occasions had sex with three female clients either during therapy sessions or outside of therapy sessions but during the period while the three women were still clients of Gares. Gares represented to the clients that their having sex with him was a part of their therapy with him. Gares challenges the Board\u2019s and the trial court\u2019s decision on the following grounds.\nHe contends that the application form which he signed in order to receive certification from the Board never asked him if he had sex with his clients, and thus his negative answer to one of the application\u2019s questions provided the Board with no grounds for its finding that Gares used fraud and deception in applying for certification. He objects in particular to question 16, which asks:\nAre you now or have you ever engaged in any activities that misrepresent your professional qualifications, affiliation, or purposes, or those of the institutions, organizations, products and/or services with which you are associated?\nWe agree with the State\u2019s argument on appeal. By answering \u201cNo\u201d to this question, Gares falsely stated that he was not engaging in \u201cactivities that misrepresent[ed] [his] professional * * * purposes ****\u2019\u2019 In other words, by having sex with his clients, he was engaging in activity that was not related to the purpose of providing psychotherapy \u2014 the purpose that was supposed to underlie his professional activities.\nGares also contends that because he was merely an applicant at the time he engaged in sex with his clients (he was then under the supervision of a certified psychologist) the Board had no jurisdiction to revoke his certification. In other words, Gares contends that the Board could only revoke his certification for the proscribed conduct if at the time of the conduct he were already certified. We disagree. The applicable statute, NMSA 1978, Section 61-9-13(A)(9) (Repl.Pamp.1989), specifically provides that the Board may revoke any psychologist\u2019s license \u201cissued or applied for\u201d and that the Board may \u201cotherwise discipline a licensed psychologist * * * upon proof that the applicant * * * has violated any code of conduct adopted by the Board.\u201d Id, Gares was an applicant and he violated the code of conduct adopted by the Board. Therefore, the Board had authority to revoke his license.\nThe trial court properly upheld the Board\u2019s decision because there was plentiful substantial evidence in the record that had been made by the Board. See Family Dental Center of New Mexico v. New Mexico Bd. of Dentistry, 97 N.M. 464, 465, 641 P.2d 495, 496 (1982). Further, even though fraud must be shown by clear, strong and convincing evidence, Seidenberg v. New Mexico Bd. of Medical Examiners, 80 N.M. 135, 137, 452 P.2d 469, 471 (1969), our review of the record convinces us that this standard was amply satisfied.\nFor the foregoing reasons the order of the district court is affirmed in its entirety.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nRANSOM and MONTGOMERY, JJ., concur.\n. Section 6, paragraph 1 of Rule 3 of the Code of Ethics of the American Psychological Association, adopted by the Board on April 22, 1985 as a Code of Conduct, provides, \"Sexual intimacies with clients are unethical.\u201d Gares did not challenge the Board\u2019s allegation on appeal that he violated this rule.\nAlthough the following consideration had nothing to do with our decision herein, our study indicates that the problem of psychotherapists\u2019 sexual relationship with their clients is one which the bench and bar would do well to study. We recommend as a beginning resource, Schoener et al. Psychotherapists\u2019 Sexual Involvement with Clients (1989) (published by Walk-In Counseling Center, 2421 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404); and Sanderson, ed. It's Never OK: A Handbook for Professionals on Sexual Exploitation by Counselors and Therapists (1989) (published by the Task Force on Sexual Exploitation by Counselors and Therapists, Minnesota Program for Victims of Sexual Assault, Minnesota, Department of Corrections, 300 Bigelow Building, 450 North Syndicate Street, St. Paul, MN 55104 (612-642-0256)).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SOSA, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston Roberts-Hohl, Santa Fe, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Hal Stratton, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth A. Glenn, Randal Van Vleck, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "798 P.2d 190\nGlen GARES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGIST EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 18846.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 2, 1990.\nWinston Roberts-Hohl, Santa Fe, for petitioner-appellant.\nHal Stratton, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth A. Glenn, Randal Van Vleck, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0589-01",
  "first_page_order": 617,
  "last_page_order": 619
}