Thomas B. Drummond - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT3                                   
              Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
               Petitioner resided in The Plains, Virginia, at the time the            
          petition was filed.                                                         
               During all relevant periods, petitioner, who holds a bache-            
          lor's degree in philosophy, a master's degree in clinical psy-              
          chology, and a Ph.D. degree in psychology, practiced as a psy-              
          chologist and his income from that practice provided his support.           
          Throughout the years at issue, petitioner devoted an average of             
          58 hours a week to his psychology practice.                                 
               From the late 1970's through sometime in 1987, petitioner              
          served as a director of several mental health clinics that are              
          part of the Prince George’s County, Maryland, health system.                
          From sometime in 1987 through 1989, petitioner practiced as a               
          psychologist at the Saint Luke Institute, a private psychiatric             
          hospital in Suitland, Maryland.  From 1988 through 1994, peti-              
          tioner provided psychological testing and counseling services               
          under the name Psychological Testing Services.  From 1989 through           
          1994, petitioner provided psychological services at the New Life            

          3  At the conclusion of the trial herein, the Court ordered the             
          parties to file simultaneous opening and answering briefs.  Both            
          of petitioner's briefs failed to comply with Rule 151(e)(3).  For           
          example, petitioner's opening brief did not contain proposed                
          findings of fact as required by that Rule.  However, his answer-            
          ing brief contained what amounted to proposed findings of fact to           
          which respondent did not have the opportunity to object.  Conse-            
          quently, we did not use the proposed findings of fact contained             
          in petitioner's answering brief as an aid in finding the facts in           
          this case.                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011