Al 5'41?? cox/09 BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE BOARD NORTH CAROLINA SUBSTANCE ABUSE) PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE BOARD, 1 Petitioner :3 NOTICE OF HEARING 1?3 v. EC Nos. 132?10 et a1. :5 JENNIFER A. HOLLOWELL, I. ?0 Respondent R3 To: Jennifer A. Hollowell 65 Chestnut Hill Road Black Mountain, NC 28711 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Petitioner North Carolina Substance Abuse Professional Practice Board (?the Board?), complaining of Respondent Jennifer A. Hollowell (?Hollowell?), issues this Notice of Hearing for a contested case hearing to be conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings, on the matters and things alleged in this Notice of Hearing. This contested case hearing is initiated by the Board for the purpose of presenting evidence to determine whether facts and cause exist to warrant discipline against the licenses issued by the Board to Hollowell, which.discipline may include revocation or suspension of the licenses and, in accordance with the provisions of N.C.G.S. 90?113.33, the recovery of its costs of investigation and.hearing. Pursuant to the provisions of North Carolina General Statutes 1508?38 and Title 21, Chapter 68 of the North Carolina Administrative=Code, Hollowell is hereby notified.that the Board has received information which, if true, could result in reprimand, suspension, or revocation Of your certification as a:substance abuse professional, specifically your certification as Certified Substance Abuse Counselor and your certification as Certified Clinical Supervisor. Pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. the Board has elected to apply to the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings for the'designation of an Administrative Law Judge to preside at the hearing of this contested case. The Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear this case shall sit in the place of the agency; shall have the authority of the presiding officer in a contested case under G. 8. Chapter 150B, Article and shall make a proposal for decision,?which shall contained 1 proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Board shall make its final decision only after the Administrative Law Judge?s proposal for decision is served on the parties, and.an.opportunity'is given to each party to file exceptions and proposed findings of fact, and to present oral and written arguments to the Board. The hearing in this matter will be conducted pursuant to N. C. G. S. et seq. (?the Administrative Procedure Act?); N.C.G.S. 90?1l3.30 et seq; (?the North Carolina Substance Abuse Professional Practice Act? or ?the Practice Act?); and 21 NCAC 68 . 0101 et seq. (?the North Carolina Administrative Code, Substance Abuse Professional Practice Board, Administrative Rules?). The hearing will be conducted at a date, time and place hereafter designated by the Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Office of Administrative Hearings. In accordance with the provisions of N.C.G.S. venueis;appropriatejJ1Buncombe County; North.Carolina;anuihearing in Buncombe County would promote the ends of justice and better serve the convenience of the witnesses. At the hearing, Hollowell will be given the opportunity to appear, be heard, introduce evidence, and be represented by legal counsel. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS . ON WHICH NOTICE OF HEARING IS issues 1. Petitioner North Carolina Substance Abuse Professional Practice Board (?the Board?), was 90?113.32, and for substance abuse professionals described in the Practice Act. The Board was established to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect the public from being harmed by unqualified persons, to assure the highest degree of professional care and conduct on the part of credentialed substance abuse professionals, to provide for the establishment of standards for the education of credentialed substance abuse professionals, and to ensure the availability of in need of these services . The Board, under authority granted by the Practice Act regulates Board?credentialed persons offering substance abuse counseling services, substance abuse prevention services, or any other substance abuse services for which the Board may grant registration, certification or licensure. 2 . Hollowell is certified by the Board as a Certified Substance 2 Abuse Counselor Certificate No. 1661, approved May 19, 2000. Hollowell is also certified by the Board as a Certified Clinical.Supervisor CertificatraNo. 341, approvrxiSeptember 10, 2005. 3. Hollowell is a citizen and resident of Buncombe County, North Carolina; and is neither a minor nor an incompetent person. Hollowell currently resides at 65 Chestnut Hill Road, Black Mountain, NC 28711 (?Chestnut?). Hollowell was formerly known as ?Jennifer Welker.? 4. On or about March 25, 2002, Recovery Ventures Corporation was formed by filing Articles of Incorporation - Nonprofit Corporation, with the North Carolina Secretary of State . The initial incorporators were David F.1?artin (?Martin?) and James A. Hollowell RVC is a non?profit corporation within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 5. After formation, Martin servedlas Administrative Director; Adam served as Executive Director; and Hollowell served as Therapeutic Director. 6. RVC was formed to provide, and did provide, through Hollowell, alcohol and drug treatment in a therapeutic community setting; and grew from one (1) location in 2002 to eight (8) locations in 2011. Hollowell served continuously as Therapeutic Director of RVC from formation through March 2011. RVC is one of seven (7) therapeutic communities in the State. 7. clients live in group homes maintained by RVC, and receive food, medical care, and substance abuse therapy provided by RVC. 8. RVC primarily seCures the funds to maintain the group homes; pay salaries to 3 employees; feed the clients, and provide medical care and therapy for the clients, through contracts with business entities in the Buncombe County'area. In general, business entities pay RVC under contract for client labor provided by RVC. For instance, RVC provides client labor at the Ridgecrest Conference Center; Ridgecrest ConferenrmaCentei'pays RVC for that labor? antiRVC uses the funds received.from.Ridgecrest ConferencetCenter to support the community. 9. RVC also supports itself through contributions either made directly, or after solicitation by clients working for RVC in their in?kind contribution program. 10. 3 clients are often generated through criminal justice referrals (?Probation Clients?); although clients may come 3 through therapist referrals, or through self?referral. 11. Subsequent to the formation of RVC, Hollowell and Adam married; and maintained their personal residence at Chestnut. Hollowell and Adam separated in early 2008. Inappropriate Client Relationship 12. On January 31, 2007, a client, who will be referred to hereinafter as John Doe was admitted to a3;rogran1run.by RVC which generally runs for two (2) years until completion. Doe was disciplined while in the program, losing time and extending the completion date under the progranlso that his presumptive graduation date was a number of months after January 31, 2009. 13. Prior to Labor Day in September 2008, Doe and Hollowell, while Doe was still a client of RVC and Hollowell, began a personal relationship, which involved Doe living at Chestnut, Doe sharing Jennifer?s bed at Chestnut, inappropriate physical contact in front of clients, and, on information and belief, ?sexual activity? or ?sexual contact? as those terms are defined in 21 NCAC 68.0101(33) and (34). 14. Engaging in sexual activity or sexual contact with a current client is, in accordance with the provisions of 21 NCAC 68.0509, grounds for discipline by the Board. 15. Whether or not Doe and Hollowell had sexual activity or sexual contact while Doe was still.a client of RVC and Hollowell, the relationship between the two (2) was such that it could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation of a client. 16. Involvement in a relationship that could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation of a client is, in accordance with the provisions of 21 NCAC grounds for discipline by the Board. 17. The relationship between Doe and Hollowell impaired Hollowell?s professional judgment, and resulted in her exploitation of him. 18. Hollowell knew that he did not have a driver?s license, and was confronted by a number of clients and staff concerning his unlicensed driving, she permitted him to drive RVC clients to work sites, and to drive her children and others. Permitting Doe to drive vehicles on behalf of RVC shows both impaired professional judgment (because 4 it is inappropriate for her to permit an unlicensed driver to drive vehicles containing clients under her care); and exploitation of Doe, because (whether or not he wanted to drive} his unlicensed driving on RVC and Hollowell?s behalf was not in his best interest. 19. While Doe was still a client of RVC and Hollowell, Hollowell was approached by a number of individuals concerning her relationship with Doe, including staff of RVC and clients, who noted that Hollowell was putting her job and career at risk, and that she did not need to be involved with Doe. More than one individual reminded Hollowell that her relationshirzwas forbidden.under the Board?s rules and ?code of ethics?. 20. During one such.conversation, Hollowell criemiout ?What am I supposed to do" love him?. In any event, despite being confronted about the impropriety of her relationship with Doe, Hollowell continued with the relationship. 21. During another such conversation while Doe was still a client of RVC and Hollowell, Hollowell responded to questions about her relationship by stating that her relationship with Doe was appropriate in the therapeutic community model. 22. Sexual activity or sexual contact with.a current client is never appropriate, particularly in the therapeutic community?model. 23. During another such conversation while Doe was a client, Hollowell explained why she was proceeding with the relationship by stating that that she did not do well when she was not in a relationship. 24. During another such conversation while Doe was a client, Hollowell was reminded that she was putting her career in jeopardy by having the relationship; to which Hollowell simply got emotional and began crying. 25. Hollowell?s relationship with Doe, and.public displays of affection in front of other clients, was damaging to other clients as well, in that Hollowell would punish clients who were in relationships with other clients. Punishing other clients for conduct that she was actively involved with, with Doe, lead other clients to believe that Hollowell was hypocritical, to become disillusioned with her and the program, and thereby hurting their progress. 26. On or about December 6, 2008, Doe graduated from program. Doe had lost time, and, even if he had not lost time, he graduated early from program. 27. Hollowell stated.prior to Doe's early graduation that she was going to graduate him early so that she could be with him. 28. Hollowell had Doe to graduate early so that she could continue with the relationship in an open manner; and, upon Doe?s graduation, Doe moved into Chestnut and openly cohabitated with Hollowell. 29. By graduating Doe early, for her own purposes, Hollowell denied Doe the full benefit of program; and did not act in the best interests of her client. 30. During a conversation with a member of the staff of RVC after Doe graduated, regarding her relationship with Doe, Hollowell was reminded that her relationship with Doe was inappropriate because he was a former client; and Hollowell responded guess you are right.? Nevertheless, Hollowell did not end the relationship. 31. Hollowell.has continued:h1a relationship>with.Doe through the date of this Notice of Hearing. 32. provides that ?Itllmeprofessional.shall avoid dual relationships that could.impair professional judgment or increase the risk of exploitation of a client.? 33. 21.NCAC provides that ?[t]he substance.abuse solicit sexual.activitycn:sexual contact with a current client. 34. 21.NCAC provides that sexual.activitqror sexual contact with a former client for five years after the termination of the counseling or consulting relationship.? [At the time Doe graduated from the program, the prohibition only extended for two years after termination of the counseling or consulting relationship.] 35. 21 NCAC 68.0509(d) provides that ?[t]he substance abuse professional shall not misuse his or her professional relationship for sexual, financial, or other personal advantage. 36. By virtue of the conduct described above, Hollowell violated her obligations under 21 NCAC 21 NCAC 21 NCAC 21 NCAC and is grounds for discipline under the provisions of 21 NCAC 37. Permitting Doe to drive clients when she knew he was not licensed is grounds for discipline under the provisions of 21 NCAC and 21 NCAC 6 Abuse Of The In Kind Program. 38 . RVC operated an in kind donation program; pursuant to which clients and/or staff would solicit from third parties in kind donations for use by RVC and its clients. 39. Hollowell supervised the in kind donation.program of would provide, to the clients and/or staff, lists of items that RVC needed and would direct the clients and/or staff to seek donations of those items. 40. Hollowell would also identify items that she needed for her personal use, and direct the clients and/or staff soliciting donations to solicit donations, in RVC's name, of the items that Hollowell wanted for her personal use. 41. Hollowell would often take items donated for use by RVC, and put them to her or family? 5 personal use. In addition, Hollowell would take the items that she originally had solicited for her personal use, and put those items to her or her family?s use. 42. Items contributed to RVC but put to her personal use included.food for human.consumption; dog food; bird.food; horse food; items contributed as Christmas presents for the clients; gift certificates; hotel rooms; pedicures; hair cuts; restaurant meals, and a pool table. Furthermore, Hollowell took for her and her family?s personal use most of the gift certificates donated to RVC. 43. Hollowell collected animals at Chestnut, and had two (2) rooms full of birds; llamas; two (2) miniature ponies; goats; four (4) dogs; kittens; ferrets; a hedgehog; turtles; rabbits and chickens. Approximately seventy~five percent of the food given to the animals was through in?kind donations. 44. Many of the clients received food stamp benefits from the United States government; RVC had.control over use of those benefits with respect to clients in the program; and RVC was supposed to use those benefits to feed the clients. Hollowell often used the card(s) containing the food stamp benefit funds to purchase food.for herself and her family. There would often be little food at the clients? residences maintained by RVC, and plenty of much better food at Chestnut. 45. Hollowell picked over and.took Christmas present donations, intended for use by 3 clients, for her and her family? 3 personal use. 46. Hollowell.was confronted by staff and clients on a number 7 of occasions concerning her personal use of in kind donations received by RVC, and the solicitation.of particular items intended ab initio for her personal use; nevertheless, Hollowell did not stop using in kind donations for her personal use, or stop requiring clients and staff to solicit the donation of particular items that she intended to (and did) put to her personal use. 47. Hollowell widely and routinely abused.the In Kind Program at RVC by taking, for personal use, in kind and.other contributions intended for the use and benefit of the clients. Furthermore, The Board is informed and believes that Hollowell similarly abuses the in kind.donation program.at RCC, referenced and discussed below. 48 . Hollowell? diversion of in kind donations intended for RVC and.its clients? use, diversion of in kind donations intended for RCC and its clients? use, to her and her family?s personal uSe, is in violation of her obligations under 21 NCAC her obligations under 21 NCAC and her obligations under 21 NCAC 49. Hollowell?s use of clients food stamp benefits for the personal use of her and.her family violate her obligations under 21.NCAC her obligations under 21 NCAC and her obligations under 21 NCAC 50. The foregoing described conduct relating to in kind contributions and food stamp benefits are grounds for discipline under the provisions of 21 NCAC 21 NCAC 21 NCAC I Use Of Client Labor For Personal Services. 51. Beginning as early as 2004, and continuing thereafter, Hollowell had clients of RVC provide personal services at Chestnut, such as cleaning her residence; cooking for her and her family; babysitting her children; landscaping; making home repairs and improvements, and taking care of her numerous animals (including, variously, dogs, cats, birds, lizards, and goats). 52. Bollowell also had clients run personal errands on her behalf, such.as picking up groceries, driving her children around, changing the tires on her car, color coordinating her closet. 53. Hollowell would travel frequently, leaving her residence and children in the care of clients; or having clients travel with her to take care of her children (whether purportedly traveling for work, or traveling on vacation). 8 54. Although Hollowell would assert, when questioned, that she was paying RVC for the services provided by the clients, in fact, she did.not pay, or if she made a payment on some particular occasion, it was nominal in relationship to the value of the services provided. 55. Clients provided personal services to Hollowell on an almost daily basis. 56. Clients who spent significant time at Chestnut, and were favored by Hollowell, were more likely to relapse than those who were not so favored. 57. On or about November 12, 2008, the Board received a complaint by Lisa Spears, concerning alleged ethical misconduct by Hollowell (Ethical Complaint 107?09). Spears? complaint included allegations that Hollowell used RVC money to purchase items for use at her personal residence; that she had clients take care of her children and animals; and that clients who objected to performing personal were shunned or put ?on the move? (given extra work). 58. On May 21, 2009, the Board resolved EC 107?09 with a non?disciplinary warning, pursuant to which terms Hollowell was warned that further breach of the rules could be the basis for discipline if the behavior continued. The Board noted that ?facts clearly established raised concerns of your need to review your practices to.avoid.dual relationships that could.impair professional judgment or increase the risk of client exploitation.? The Board further noted: ?These concerns arise due to your use of personnel from your therapeutic community to provide child care for your children and lawn care for your personal residence. On its face, this would be a violation of the profession?s Code of Ethics, but due to the unique character of the therapeutic community wherein you live and provide services, the traditional guidelines do not appear applicable. However, this does not mean that you are to ever disregard the basic principles requiring that you avoid relationships that could impair professional judgment and any form.of client exploitation.? 59. Thereafter, Hollowell was warned by the Board of RVC that she was not to use clients at her personal residence to babysit her children, to perform landscaping or other services at her personal residence, or to otherwise provide personal services for her. 60. In.spite of the warning of the Board, and the instructions of Board, Hollowell continuedixahave clients perfornlpersonal 9 services at her residence, including babysitting her children, cooking, cleaning, landscaping, animal care and home improvement work. Thelnajorityrof'Hollowell?s child.care, animal care, cooking, cleaning and landscaping was performed by clients, without payment to either the clients or RVC. 61. Clients who did not want to perform personal services for Hollowell were subject to punishment for their refusal, and were often disciplined by Hollowell. 62. Hollowell received multiple warnings from members of 3 Board that she was not to have clients feed her animals, clean her personal residence, babysit for her children, or otherwise use clients for her personal benefit; nevertheless, Hollowell continued to use clients for her personal benefit. 63. Hollowell actively sought to conceal her use of clients for personal services by'threatening'thentwith.dire consequences if they hold anyone else at and by having clients and/or staff of RVC falsify the records maintained by RVC, with respect to the use of clients? time, to conceal their use at Chestnut. 64. Hollowell had a client, who will be referred to as Jane Smith and who had only been with the program for a short period of time, babysit her children for eleven (11) days while Hollowell traveled and vacationed. 65. Obviously, Smith was denied the benefit of the therapeutic community during that time; and use as a babysitter for eleven (11) days was both exploitive and not in Smith?s best interests. 66. While Smith had been progressing before she was left with Hollowell?s children; thereafter she left the program.and relapsed. 67. lklMarcthEZOll, RVC terminated Hollowell?s employment on account of her putting clients to work for her personal benefit. 68. 21 NCAC 68.0509(d) specifically provides that ?[t]he substance abuse professional shall not misuse his or her professional relationship for sexual, financial, or other personal advantage. Hollowell?s persistent use of clients? labor for her own personal benefit is in_violation of her obligations under 21 NCAC 69. Hollowell?s use of clients? labor for her own benefit is also in violation of her obligations under 21 NCAC 70. Hollowell?s use of clients' labor for her own benefit is in violation of her obligations under 21 NCAC 10 71. Hollowell?s use of clients? labor for her own benefit denied those clients the full benefit of the programs at RVC, reducing the clients chances of completing the program, and actively causing harm to the clients, in violation of her_obligations under 21 NCAC 21 NCAC and 21 NCAC 72. Hollowell?s actions, are described.above, are grounds for discipline under 21 NCAC and Improper Personal Use Of Therapeutic Community Assets. 73. Hollowell used the RVC corporate-credit card on a number of occasions for her personal expenses. 74. Hollowell submitted receipts for personal expenses to RVC, mis?representing what the receipts represented, and received reimbursement. 75. Hollowell otherwise persistently used therapuetic community assets for personal use. 76. Hollowell?s personal use of therapeutic community assets denied the use of those assets to clients of and constitute a fraud on those who supported and contributed to RVC. 77. Hollowell?s actions, described above, violate her obligations under 21 NCAC 68.0507(a) and 21 NCAC 21 NCAC 68.0501 and are grounds for discipline under the provisions of 21 NCAC and Emproper Client Soliciation. 78. On April 12, 2011, shortly after her termination by RVC, Hollowell caused a nonprofit corporation, Recovery Connections Community to be formed, and Hollowell, through RCC, began setting through RCC. 79. Subsequenttx:formationwofEKKL Hollowell acting directly, Doe, and other individuals acting on Hollowell?s behalf, began to solicit RVC clients, seeking to have them leave RVC and_come to RCC. 80. In a number of cases, Hollowell, or individuals acting on her specific instructions, or otherwise acting on her behalf, solicited 5 clients at the sites where they were working on behalf of RVC, and took them straight from those work sites to her new facilities. 11 81. In no case where.Hollowell, or her agents, solicited.RVC?s clients to come to RCC, did she provide advance notice to RVC that she was soliciting the client. 82. In a number of cases, clients solicited by Hollowell or her agents, and who they convinced to come to RCC, were on probation, with orders providing for treatment at RVC, and Hollowell took the clients without prior change in the clients? probation status or obligations. Hollowell?s actions exposed.the clients that she took to the risk of probation revocation and incarceration. 83. of other substance abuse professionals, such as those of FIRST at Blue Ridge, Inc. 84. In no case where Hollowell, or her agents, have attempted to solicit clients of FIRST at Blue Ridge, Inc., did she provide advance notice to FIRST at Blue Ridge, Inc. that she was going to solicit {or did solicit) the clients. 85. 21 NCAC 68.0510(b) provides that substance abuse professional shall not offer professional services to a client in counseling or consulting with another professional except with the knowledge of the other professional, or after termination of the client?s relationship with the other professional. 86. Hollowell?s actions, described above, are in violation of her obligations under 21 NCAC 21 NCAC and are grounds for discipline under 21 NCAC Solicitation of Contributions_?y RCC. 87. On information and belief, RCC did not immediately become a nonuprofit corporation within the meaning of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 88. Prior to becoming a non?profit corporation within the meaning of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, Hollowell, or individuals acting on her behalf and as her agent, solicited donations on behalf of RCC, while falsely asserting that it was so qualified. This assertion was, at relevant times, false and fraudulent. 89. Hollowell, or individual clients or staff of RCC acting on her behalf, solicited donations on behalf of RCC, while falsely asserting that RCC was affiliated with RVC. This assertion was false and fraudulent. 12 90. Solicitation of donations for RCC while fraudulently asserting that the entity was a non~profit corporation within the meaning of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and/or affiliated with RVC is, pursuant to the provisions of 21 NCAC and(6)(e), grounds for discipline. Interference With Investigation. 91. During the course of the investigation, one of the potential witnesses and complainants, Mary Quinn (?Quinn?) was contacted by telephone by individuals associated with RCC, who indicated that they understood that Quinn was meeting with counsel for the Board, and who said ?Just let the attorney know it was a complaint because you were angry.? 92. On information and belief, Hollowell was on thejphone?with her associates during the call, and/or had encouraged them to contact Quinn in an attempt to shape her testimony. 93. The foregoing described conduct is grounds for discipline under the provisions of 21 NCAC Failure To maintain Appropriate Boundaries. 94. In a general sense, Hollowell, while at RVC and RCC, has failed to maintain appropriate boundaries between herself and her clients and ways that have negatively impacted their progress in treatment; has used and exploited her clients for her personal benefit; has abused and otherwise treated clients in a way not primarily for the benefit of the clients, and in many cases to their immediate and actual detriment; has exposed clients to environments harmful to them; all in violation.of her obligations of the rules and regulations of the Board. 95. The foregoing described conduct is grounds for discipline under the provisions of 21 NCAC 68.0601. Hollowell may be subject to discipline up to and including revocation of Hollowell?s certification as a Certified Substance Abuse Counselor Certificate No. 1661, approved May 19, 2000; revocation of Hollowell' certification as a Certified Clinical 34l,approvedSeptember10,2005; and an order taxing Hollowell with the costs of the Board?s investigation and action through hearing. In accordance with N.C.G.S. you may not 13 communicate directly or indirectly with any individual member of the Board regarding this matter, as they will ultimately determine whether to accept or reject the Administrative Law Judge?s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. If you desire to attempt to resolve this matter informally, you may contact the Board?s Legal Counsel, Nelson G. Harris; 7320 Six Forks Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27 615; telephone number, fax number and email address set forth below. This Notice of Hearing issued the 4&21?wday of February, 2012. THE NORTH CAROLINA SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE BOARD By: a Nelson G. Harris NC Bar Number 16660 7320 Six Forks Road, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 848?6164 Facsimile: (919) 848~6918 Email: Nharris@hfhlaw.com 14