Snipped.
Dina had
nothing at all to do with being listed there, or on other "doctor find" sites. Once you are licensed,
or listed as clinical staff at even one clinic or facility, your name ends up on dozens of those doctor find lists. All levels of independent care providers are listed, not just medical docs. Nurse practitioners, optometrists, dentists, podiatrists, licensed independent social workers, psychologists, etc. Physician assistants, for example, are not typically listed because they are not independent of physicians in their billing, practice, and licensure. General practice RN's are also not typically listed, unless they have some kind of specialty certification, such as "WOC" nurses (wound, osteomy, and continence), or diabetes educators, or specialized dietitians, etc.
Added: Sometimes the databases incorrectly identify individuals as MD's who are not. It is not the fault of the practitioner, since they didn't ask to be put on the list, and there are so many databases it would be impossible to try to correct this. State licensure boards and lists are the most accurate public sources of information about a provider's credentials. And all of these databases are easily searched public databases. They are intentionally designed to be easily accessible to the public to prevent fraudulent claims of education and credentials.
Disciplinary outcomes, although not always the event details, are also public record, to protect and inform the public. Things such as the minutes of licensure committees are also public record. It can be embarrassing for someone to discover information such as a recommendation to be declined for board exams or licensure (such as Dina's issue with the AZ psych board declining her application for licensure that we discussed months ago), and it is always up to the individual to explain these issues to whomever asks. That is the purpose of licensure and open records, to provide accountability to the public.
If something is listed incorrectly in the minutes, a provider can always request formally that the misinformation be corrected in future meeting minutes. That is what professionals do. Most professionals would not ignore unfavorable information in th public record about their professional practice, because they would have to continuously explain it to future employers, patients, etc. that is, if they ever intend to work professionally. Dina remains unlicensed, for what I can find. She did graduate with her PsyD degree, and use that forever in her credentials. However, she has also greatly, IMO, exaggerated the extent of her professional career. Much of what she claims to have done professionally was done as an intern at the ADHD And Aspergers clinic, or as a volunteer before she went to Argosy.
