Short Hills Clinical Psychology Practice Violates Patients' Privacy -- New York Times

Kitaba said:

The practice obviously has the right to go after a client (parents) for non-payment.  However, I can't for the life of me understand why the diagnosis would be helpful to the case?  Non-payment is non-payment whether it be a psych bill or any other bill.  I would think what they need to prove is services being rendered not why the client came in. 

Which is precisely why it's clear that this was a vindictive move. The head of this practice needs therapy to learn why he is motivated to act with unwarranted malice.