An Arizona man is going to prison for pretending to be a psychologist.
Scott Keeling, the individual charged by the Arizona attorney general for an illegal scheme to defraud the state’s Medicaid program for millions, was recently sentenced to a year-and-a-half in prison.
The attorney general admitted to using a counterfeit college degree from UCLA in order to portray himself as a licensed psychologist. Not only did he provide treatment to patients, but he also went as far as obtaining a license plate that read DR-PSYCH. Shockingly, it appears that he is not the sole individual involved in such deceptive practices.
Anne Ryman, an investigative reporter on ABC15, has been exposing instances of unlicensed health care imposters. In a recent interview on The Show, Ryman delved into the details of her investigations.
Full conversation
Lauren Gilger: Good morning, Anne.
ANNE RYMAN: Good morning.
GILGER: Thank you for joining us. Let’s begin with Scott Keeling and the allegations made by the Attorney General. What specific charges were brought against him?
According to Ryman, the individual in question has been accused of engaging in fraudulent schemes. Allegedly, he exploited the state’s Medicaid system by billing through it without the necessary code or permission.
GILGER: So, he successfully constructed the state’s Medicaid program at a significant cost. How much exactly?
RYMAN: According to the Attorney General, the amount exceeds $3 million.
GILGER: The extent to which this situation was influenced by his self-proclaimed title as a psychologist and his claim of having a doctorate is worth considering.
RYMAN: According to the people who worked for him, they strongly believe that this was a major factor in his decision. He founded this business in 2023 after many individuals had already joined his previous company. They had always assumed that he was a licensed psychologist with a degree from UCLA. Therefore, they were just as shocked as everyone else when they learned about the criminal charges and discovered that the man they had known for years was not actually a psychologist and did not possess a degree.
GILGER: That’s correct. The revelation of all this information came about in a fascinating manner. Could you please elaborate on how it was brought to light, specifically in relation to a child custody case that he was embroiled in?
In this case, it was a father who made a significant discovery. During a child custody dispute, the father presented court documents that included a report from Dr. Scott Keeling, a psychologist. According to Dr. Keeling’s professional evaluation, the children were deemed to be in a better situation under the care of the guardian than with their father.
The father’s suspicions were immediately aroused as he pondered, “Who exactly is this Scott Keeling?” His investigative instincts kicked in, prompting him to delve deeper into the matter. To his surprise, he discovered that Scott Keeling was not licensed as a psychologist. Seeking further confirmation, he reached out to the psychology board, only to find that they had no record of him. In an attempt to uncover the truth, he even went as far as hiring a private investigator.
After determining that the individual in question was not a psychologist, he took immediate action by reaching out to various authorities. He contacted the attorney general, the Phoenix Police Department, and the psychology board. Additionally, he personally called me during this process. Each of us initiated our own separate investigations, and we collectively arrived at the same outcome: we found no evidence of this man being licensed in Arizona.
GILGER: Did UCLA actually have any records of him graduating from there, as his diploma would have implied?
RYMAN: Absolutely not. In fact, they informed the attorney general that the document was a complete forgery.
GILGER: Let’s discuss the state psychology board and how they reacted to this situation. What actions did they take?
According to Ryman, the board took the matter seriously and conducted an investigation. They called him in and, as I listened to the audio, he admitted to being a psychologist. However, upon searching for any evidence to support this claim, they found none. As a result, they issued him a cease and desist order, essentially prohibiting him from presenting himself as a psychologist.
The attorney general conducted its own investigation and eventually filed criminal charges against him.
Gilger wonders if any of Dr. X’s former patients will now discover that they were treated by someone who was not actually a psychologist.
RYMAN: They know about it because the state’s Medicaid system shut down his office, leaving him unable to operate it. As a result, his patients suddenly lost access to their treatment and had to seek care elsewhere. Additionally, his employees were given little notice that they were now unemployed.
GILGER: You’ve had conversations with some of them as you mentioned earlier. What is Keeling’s response to all of this? He continues to assert his innocence.
RYMAN: Keeling has remained silent throughout the sentencing process. The pre-sentencing report, which contained sensitive information, was sealed by the judge, leaving us in the dark about Keeling’s statements to the judge. Typically, these reports provide insights into a person’s background, including their upbringing and factors that may have influenced their actions. Unfortunately, in this case, we are left without that information.
In court, he made a statement claiming that he believed the arrangement he had was legal because he had consulted an attorney. However, the attorney general does not agree with this argument. They assert that there is substantial evidence that would have emerged during a trial, indicating that he knew the arrangement was illegal.
GILGER: That’s fascinating. So, you’ve come across other similar cases in recent years, correct? Could you tell us about other instances where you’ve discovered unlicensed healthcare practitioners?
RYMAN: The most recent example that comes to mind involves dentists. There have been cases where individuals with limited or incomplete dental training, such as hygienist training, have been advertising dental services at discounted prices. I recently reported on a case where a woman with dental training from another country was offering fillings for only $100. At first glance, this may seem like a great deal, but it became apparent that she lacked the proper qualifications for performing such procedures. As a result, she was ultimately charged by the attorney general.
There are two types of people who are involved in misrepresentation when it comes to certain professions. First, there are those who have no degree or formal training at all. Second, there are individuals who have received some training elsewhere but are falsely presenting themselves as professionals in the field. An example of this can be seen in the massage therapy industry. During a recent massage board meeting, three individuals were issued cease and desist orders for falsely claiming to be massage therapists without the appropriate qualifications.
GILGER: It seems that harm can occur when individuals who are not licensed and trained professionals pretend to be so, particularly in the field of dentistry. We have witnessed the detrimental consequences of such actions.
RYMAN: Absolutely. Many regulated and licensed health professions require extensive schooling and training in order to obtain a degree. The risk lies in receiving treatment from someone who lacks the necessary experience and knowledge, which can lead to significant harm for individuals.
GILGER: Yes, indeed. According to the Attorney General, cases similar to these, involving medical imposters, are increasing in number.
It is crucial to emphasize the significance of thoroughly researching any medical professional involved in your life, your children’s lives, or your parents’ lives. One can easily access the regulatory board responsible for overseeing their practice and verify their credentials. In addition to confirming their licensing status, it is also possible to review their disciplinary history spanning the past five years. This information can serve as a warning sign if the individual has had multiple issues with the regulatory board.