Letter to CFBI
Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance
Through the letter below we let them know about our action we took with Dora against Dr. David Zierk, and also let them know about Ashley Hernandez-Schlagel Esq interference and facilitating DR. Zierk his unethical procedures during the MMPI test was given to Daniela.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date January 14, 2018
To: Colorado Dept. of Regulatory Agencies
Division of Insurance Consumer Services
1560 Broadway, Suite 850
Denver Colorado 80202
(303) 894-7499 | 1-800-930-3745
and, Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance,
President Don Shawcroft, V.P. Carlyle Currier, Treasurer Mike Mitchell
9177 E. Mineral Circle
Centennial Colorado 80112
Phone 303-749-7500
From:
Karl and Daniela King
Subject: Unethical practices used by an expert witness hired by the law firm employed by Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance to represent them in a lawsuit.
The Law firm:
Nathan, Dumm and Mayer P.C. ( NDM )
7900 E Union Ave, Ste. 600
Denver Colorado 80237
Phone: 303-952-0638
and their employee Ashley Hernandez-Schlagel, Esq.
represented the Insurance Firm:
Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance, ( CFBI )
9177 E. Mineral Circle
Centennial Colorado 80112
Phone 303-749-7500
In a law suit, Case 15-CV-031096, Nathan, Dumm and Mayer P.C. hired the services of Dr. David Zierk, Psy. D. as an expert witness. Dr. Zierk gave an MMPI-2 psychological test to plaintiff Daniela King using unethical methods of reading and filling in responses to the MMPI score sheet rather than letting Mrs. King read and fill in the responses. This afforded Dr. Zierk the opportunity to mis-score the answers in favor the Defense ( NDM and CFBI ) in the lawsuit.
Plaintiff Karl King wished to be in the room used for testing, but Ashley Hernandez-Schlagel Esq. refused his presence in the room. This calls into question if she knew before hand that unethical procedures would be used in the testing. It is noted that Nathan, Dumm and Mayer Law firm has used the services of Dr. Zierk in other trials.
The nature of the unprofessional services is explained in an attachment to this letter, which was filed with DORA as Case 2017-4983.
We have communicated this so that DORA has this information in their records, and for examination of the case.
Please advise us of your findings in this matter.
If you have questions regarding the incidents mentioned in the report, you can contact us at the address above or phone XXX-XXX-XXXX, or e-mail xxxxxxxxxx.com
For your information ( CFBI ), we also filed a complaint against Officer Lorenzen with the Loveland Police.
The complaint was sent to the Chief of Police, and the members of the Loveland City Council because of a quality issue, dereliction of duty, brought to light by the performance of a particular Loveland Police Officer. The letter for the purpose of addressing the quality issue so that others in the community can get the services they need, and that Loveland can get the police officer performance for which their taxes pay.
The Loveland Asst. Attorney is also involved in this investigation which is still pending.
We also sent an official complaint to the Colorado State Bar Association regarding the practices of:
The Law Firm:
Nathan, Dumm and Mayer P.C. ( NDM )
7900 E Union Ave, Ste. 600
Denver Colorado 80237
Phone: 303-952-0638
and their employee Ashley Hernandez-Schlagel, Esq.
and, reported to:
Sincerely,
Karl and Daniela King
MMPI and other tests by D Zierk
NDM law firm
Offer of settlement for Karla
Testimony Police officer Prejudice
Verdict, Jury prejudice
Letter of Complaint sent to DORA re: Dr. David Zierk Psy. D.
Date: August 23, 2017
DORA 303-894-2435
Case : 2017-4983
To: Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies
Division of Professions and Occupations
1560 Broadway, Suite 1350
Denver CO 80202
From: Daniela and Karl King
Subject: Professional ethics problem to be investigated relating to the giving of an MMPI-2 to Daniela King, and the scoring of the test results.
Summary:
The Denver law firm Nathan Dumm and Mayer (NDM)
7900 East Union Ave – Suite 600 Denver, CO 80237
Phone 303-691-3737
https://ndm-law.com/
retained the services of:
Dr. David W. Zierk
7120 East Orchard Road, Suite 450
Centennial Co
303-290-8000
http://www.familyworkz.com/about-zierk.php
to do a forensic psychology analysis for a court case in Larimer County, Fort Collins CO.
The list of tests and Dr. Zierk’s analysis is contained in his report, attached for your review.
The ethical issue regarding the testing involves the administration of the MMPI – 2. The testing was completed against all protocols for this type of test, and afforded an opportunity for falsification of the test scores by injecting Dr. Zierk’s transcription of the responses without my being able to verify the marked responses. In my case, Dr. Zierk had me give him my verbal responses and he kept the answer sheet and marked what were supposed to be my responses. Such falsification, if any, would benefit the defense attorneys who hired Dr. Zierk in our legal case.
I understand that an Independent Medical Examination does not create physician-patient relationships, but it does include the ethical duty to be fair and objective regardless of who pays for their services. According to the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology developed by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychology-Law Society, “when conducting forensic examinations, forensic practitioners strive to be unbiased and impartial, and avoid partisan presentation of unrepresentative, incomplete, or inaccurate evidence that might mislead finders of fact.” (See, American Psychological Association and American Psychology-Law Society 2011).
The method of administering the MMPI-2 in my situation raises many concerns. Did NDM pay Dr. Zierk with the expectation that he would falsify test results to benefit them? NDM has a history of using Dr. Zierk for forensic analysis. Is that because he provides skewed results benefitting NDM on a regular basis? Have others who were tested by Dr. Zierk reported similar behavior?
We believe that the State Board of Psychologist Examiners has a responsibility to consider and investigate those real possibilities as part of their due diligence to protect and maintain the Board’s credibility with the public and the courts.
Details
The exams were given at the Hampton Inn in Fort Collins on October 19, 2016. A spacious room was used for the exercise. The parties arrived, and set up materials. The Kings brought both video and audio recording gear for the event. Dr. Zierk had his own audio recording device.
Daniela King had been suffering from anxiety and panic attacks, and was loath to be tested by a stranger in a strange room without her husband present for reassurance. This was explained to Dr. Zierk. While he found this unusual, he offered that Karl could stay in the room if he sat far away from the proceedings. Given that the person under test should not be influenced by others in the room, the Kings deemed this reasonable and accepted. However, Dr. Zierk discussed this with the lawyer from NDM ( Ashley Hernandez-Schlagel ) who rejected the offer and said that the test could NOT proceed with Karl in the room. The Kings spoke with their lawyer who advised that Karl be down the hall rather than in the room. That was done and the testing proceeded.
Why did the lawyer from NDM object so strenuously? Was she afraid that Karl would see/hear something untoward or unethical?
Dr. Zierk proceeded with various tests prior to the MMPI-2. When the time came for the MMPI-2, he asked that all recording devices be turned off, including his own. Daniela followed this request.
Instead of using the standard test book for the MMPI-2, Dr. Zierk provided the questions to Daniela on Xeroxed sheets that were old and dog-eared, suggesting that they had been used many times in the past. Dr. Zierk recorded the answers on a sheet of his own, per Daniela’s verbal response to each question. Daniela asked him to use a green gel pen for the marking, which he did. He notes that in his report, as well as noting that he filled in the answer sheets. Page 4.
“Another example of Ms. King’s deliberate and directive mindset involved the time when this psychologist assisted her with completing the MMPI-2. While Ms. King would read the questions to herself and respond verbally with an answer, this psychologist populated the appropriate item on the answer sheet.”
During the testing, Daniela, who is far-sighted, wore glasses for close-up work but these glasses prevented her from seeing the markings of Dr. Zierk, and verifying that they corresponded with her actual answers.
After the questions had been answered and recorded, Dr. Zierk asked Daniela to initial the answer sheet, which she did.
This procedure is seriously flawed from a quality viewpoint, and unethical:
The standard procedure for the MMPI was not followed.
The person being tested had to give verbal answers, some of which might be embarrassing, and that could affect the validity of the answer.
Dr. Zierk had the opportunity to mis-mark the answer sheet, skewing the scoring to a result favorable to the defense in the associated lawsuit.
No independent log of the answers was formed during the procedure. The only answer sheet was signed by Daniela and taken away without a copy being made.
The audio/visual equipment that could have recorded the verbal answers was turned off during the test at the request of Dr. Zierk.
This modus operandi provides an opportunity for the tester to falsify answers to the benefit of his employer, and cover the tracks by eliminating quality records that would allow responses sent to the scoring service to be compared to responses actually given by the person under test. That procedure is therefore unethical and professionally unacceptable.
An experienced PsyD would know quite well about the sensitivity of the MMPI-2 scoring to the shifting of answers. Massive falsification would not be necessary; shifting the answers on a dozen responses could produce a score shift useful to the law firm that hired the PsyD for testing.
After the testing was done, the Kings sought the services of:
Kent Tompkins MA, LPC
2216 Scotch Pine Ct / Loveland, CO 80538 / 970.626.3333 / em:kent@kentart.com
who has given the MMPI-2 many times over the years. His report contains the following comments.
Regarding the administration process of the MMPI-2 in Dr. Zierk’s office, Mrs. King reported
the following. Dr. Zierk initially instructed Mrs. King to read the number of the question aloud.
She was given what appeared to be clearly used photocopied sheets, stapled together. He then
asked Mrs. King to read the question silently and then provide Dr. Zierk with a verbal true or
false response to him.
After the second or third question, Mrs. King stated that she told Dr. Zierk that she was getting
confused with correlating the number of the question and then responding out loud with her
answer of true or false. Mrs. King then stated that Dr. Zierk allowed her to read the number,
corresponding question and answer aloud, while he then wrote down her answers for her. She
was then asked to sign the answer sheet Dr. Zierk had completed, which she did. Mrs King stated
that at no time could she see the answer sheet Dr. Zierk was recording her answers on, due to her
wearing reading glasses and her need to focus on reading each number and question aloud. She
stated that she also felt some of the questions were very private, and felt occasionally
embarrassed to provide Dr. Zierk with her answers aloud.
I then discussed with Mrs. King and her husband that we could proceed with the clinical
interview and have her complete the MMPI-2 by using the hardcover test booklet, Product
#24010 from NCS Assessments in concert with the hardcover hand scoring answer sheet #
24011. I informed Mrs. King that I was authorized to complete the MMPI-2 per DORA
standards, based on my prior training, and having provided expert witness testimony in courts
previously in my private practice cases. Mrs. King clearly had the aptitude to complete the
MMPI-2 on her own. I checked in on her twice during the testing in my office, and she did not
have any questions or concerns. She reported feeling comfortable, relaxed and appreciated not
being interrupted. She added that her privacy in answering some questions was important, given
the nature of some of the questions on the test.
Note that during the exam, Karl King was allowed to be in an adjacent room where he could hear the testing room, but not be present in it.
At the suggestion of Kent Tompkins, the Kings sought the services of:
Dr. Nathaan Deemers, PsyD, Licensed Clinical Psychologist (#4322)
Comprehensive Assessment and Psychological Services LLC
445 W. 47th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
(970)-541-4347
for his comments on the procedure. His report analyzed in detail the problems with the MMPI-2 exam given by Dr. Zierk. Please refer to his full report, attached.
Has this kind of procedure been used on others?
In addition to the dog-eared sheets handed to Daniela, we have the following comment from an on-line review:
https://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/3131221/Dr-DAVID+W.-ZIERK-Centennial-CO.html
“Yes, we found out the same thing dr. Zierk is unethical and all he knows to do is to lie and get paid. He should be put in jail and have his license suspended for destroying people’s life. If he ever gives you a test never let him fill out the forms for you. It is unethical for the person giving the test.”
That suggests that the practice of Dr. Zierk recording on answer sheets is not an isolated case.
A broader collection of Reviews from various web sites is contained in an Appendix to this document.
PTSD denial in this case
In the King’s case, Daniela experienced serious trauma from being run off the road: very loud noise from the underside of her vehicle going over rough and rocky ground, and nearly crashing into a 10 foot deep irrigation ditch. She saw the edge of the ditch quickly approaching and had to take evasive action. During that time, she feared for the life or herself and her daughter. That fearful incident, along with her continuing symptoms led to a diagnosis of PTSD from her GP, Deanne Lembitz, psychologists Jacque Ristau, and Kent Tompkins, and PsyD Nathaan Deemers. This is particularly mentioned in the attached report from Dr. Deemers. Dr. Zierk was aware of those diagnoses, yet at trial he testified that Daniela King did not have PTSD, having suffered only “everyday occurrences” while being run off the road. While Dr. Zierk is entitled to his own professional opinion, it begs the question if his testimony is severely slanted by profit motive. Does that profit motive also result in test scores being altered?
How will the Board react and investigate this quality issue?
This incident shows some serious quality issues. While these may not be consequential in an academic setting, they could have serious consequences in legal cases, and appear to have done so, according to the reviews.
Reviews from others raise the possibility that what the Kings saw was not an isolated issue. It is possible that many people have unfairly suffered from the consequences of score shifting. Given that quality records are blatantly unavailable, people to are free to speculate negatively and cannot be proven wrong.
The Board should take some action in this matter to protect their reputation, and others who come into contact with Dr. Zierk. We look forward to some response from the board regarding this matter, and appreciate your efforts.
Sincerely,
Karl and Daniela King
C.C.
GEORGE H. PARKER
The Law Office of George H. Parker, L.L.C.
1631 Greenstone Trail
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Reference Materials
Appendix: Links for on-line review comments regarding Dr. Zierk, and reviews taken from the linked sites.
Report from Dr. David W. Zierk
Report from Dr. Nathaan Deemers