DIABLO ASSESSMENTS INC — Psychologist in San Jose, CA

This was a pretty hard building to find. it has a parking lot, but the driveway is very hard to find. We parked in front and walked up the stairs.But there is a ramp in the back. I'm disabled, so I had to hold on to the stairs. my hands ended up extremely dirty from that. there is an elevator in the building. The office itself looks very basic, and had an overwhelmingly terrible smell in the waiting room, kind of like toilet bowl cleaner. The receptionist seemed to be in a bad mood. I went in for an assessment for ssdi. The receptionist did not look at my I.D and ushered me back to see the psychologist. The psychologist did not look at my I.D either- even though I offered. The interview was less than 20 minutes, and the doctor seemed impatient and not happy to answer any questions I had to clarify, she just wanted to type out responses to the prescribed questions from social security. As soon as we were done, she was in a hurry to pack up and leave, telling me to write out my meds.

Dr. Adrienne DiFabio’s forensic evaluation of Defendant is so egregiously flawed, unscientific, and unlawful that it warrants complete exclusion from the record and retroactive reversal of any and all legal decisions that relied upon it. The report includes unlicensed forensic conduct, unauthorized and prejudicial diagnoses, hearsay statements from the defense attorney, and fails to follow required diagnostic or forensic procedures. Dr. DiFabio’s report altered the trajectory of Defendant’s life, resulting in severe harm, deprivation of liberty, and obstruction of justice. Penal Code § 1369 strictly governs the procedure and scope of competency evaluations. It allows only: Personal examination by the appointed psychologist or psychiatrist; A description of any mental disorder or developmental disability; A factual analysis of whether the defendant understands the proceedings and can assist counsel; and Clinical facts that support these conclusions. Nowhere in § 1369 is the inclusion of attorney hearsay authorized. Yet, Dr. DiFabio included defense counsel's statements that Defendant was "delusional" and had "conspiracy beliefs," which are inadmissible under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 686, and California Evidence Code § 1200 (hearsay prohibition). Moreover, Dr. DiFabio’s evaluation is non-forensic in nature. She is not a licensed forensic psychologist, and her attempt to perform duties outside her scope of practice violates California Business & Professions Code § 2960 et seq. Her unsworn, unsigned report lacks any forensic validity and fails to meet Daubert and Frye standards for admissibility. B. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE TESTING METHODS AND SCORES A valid forensic report must include: Names of all psychological tests used Raw scores Standardized interpretations Scientific purpose of each tool Dr. DiFabio's report includes none of the above. She relied exclusively on subjective impressions and unverified opinion, violating: People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372; California Evidence Code § 801(b); APA Guidelines on Forensic Psychology (2013) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 509 U.S. 579. C. BASELESS, UNAUTHORIZED, AND UNDISCLOSED DIAGNOSIS Dr. DiFabio issued a diagnosis of "unspecified bipolar disorder" after a single 45-minute interview, without informing the Defendant, without securing informed consent, and without any valid clinical or diagnostic foundation. This act constitutes: Unauthorized Disclosure of a Mental Health Diagnosis Violation of Informed Consent under APA Ethics Standard 9.03; Breach of Confidentiality in violation of California Civil Code § 56.10 and HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 CFR § 164.502; Violation of APA Ethics Standard 9.01 (Bases for Assessments) by rendering a clinical opinion without data; These acts are potentially defamatory, harmful, and professionally disqualifying. Diagnosing a defendant with a stigmatizing disorder without: Longitudinal history, DSM-5-TR diagnostic process, Objective testing, Exclusion of other causes (e.g., TBI, trauma, IED) … is clinically reckless, ethically forbidden, and legally inadmissible. D. DEFAMATORY, IRRELEVANT AND MALICIOUS PERSONAL COMMENTARY Dr. DiFabio's report includes a prejudicial, retaliatory comment regarding Defendant's appearance, stating that he "appeared older than his age." Such commentary violates: APA Ethical Standard 3.04 (Avoiding Harm); California Evidence Code § 352 (exclusion of prejudicial material); Basic standards of neutrality and objectivity in forensic reporting. E. OMISSION OF CRITICAL MEDICAL HISTORY Dr. DiFabio made no mention of Defendant's documented TBI, SSA-recognized disability, or the deafness resulting from a 2-ton ceiling collapse. She also failed to mention his long public history of service: Her implication that he had no ability to rationally discuss his civil or criminal cases is not only inaccurate, but demonstrably false and defamatory. No impartial evaluator could conclude that such a public-facing figure lacks insight into his legal matters.

evaluations by DiFabio can be bought, this evaluation was purchased by the district attorney JEFF ROSEN DiFabio’s Evaluation is Non-Forensic Failure to meet any standard for a legitimate forensic evaluation. Her assessment lacked scientific rigor, proper methodology, and adherence to legal and ethical requirements, making it legally invalid. A forensic psychological assessment must follow established guidelines from: American Psychological Association (APA) Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (SGFP) California Penal Code § 1369 (Competency Evaluations) Dr. DiFabio’s 37-minute session failed to meet the time and methodological requirements I. DiFabio’s Key Failures in Non-Forensic Evaluation A. No Psychological Testing Conducted Dr. DiFabio failed to administer any standard forensic tests to assess cognitive or mental capacity, violating: APA Standard 9.02(a) (Use of Assessments in General & Forensic Settings) California Penal Code § 1369(a) (Requirement for Comprehensive Forensic Assessments) B. No Review of Medical or Mental Health Records Dr. DiFabio failed to review critical medical and psychological records, including Master’s documented traumatic brain injury (TBI) and full disability status. This violates: California Penal Code § 1369(a) (Requirement to Review Medical and Psychiatric History) APA Standard 9.06 (Interpreting Assessment Results) – Mandating Sufficient Data Collection A legitimate forensic evaluation must review prior medical history, disability records, and previous psychological assessments. DiFabio ignored all of these. II. ADA and Disability Discrimination Violations Dr. DiFabio failed to accommodate Master’s disabilities, violating: ADA Title II – Requirement for Disability Accommodations, as established in Tennessee v. Lane (2004) 541 U.S. 509, California Government Code § 11135 – Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Programs APA Standard 3.01 (Unfair Discrimination) – Mandating Accommodations for Disabilities Forensic evaluations must be non-discriminatory III. Unlawful Medical Diagnoses and Unauthorized Practic Dr. DiFabio made medical determinations outside her legal scope, violating: California Business & Professions Code § 2903 – Restricting the Practice of Medicine APA Standard 2.04 (Boundaries of Competence) – Prohibiting Psychologists from Practicing Medicine She improperly diagnosed Master with “premature aging” and neurological damage without medical qualifications, constituting the unauthorized practice of medicine. This violates California Business & Professions Code §§ 2052, 2903, which prohibit individuals from practicing medicine or making medical diagnoses without proper licensing. IV. Forensic Standards Violations A forensic evaluation must adhere to the following legal and professional standards: Requirement Mandated By Did DiFabio Comply? Review of medical or psychiatric history California Penal Code § 1369 No Conduct structured forensic interviews APA 9.01 No Issue an unbiased report to the court SGFP 1.02 No (Report favored prosecution) Use standardized forensic tests APA 9.02(a) No Consider alternative explanations APA 9.06 No (Ignored TBI and hearing loss) Avoid bias in evaluations APA 3.03 No (Used prejudicial language) Stay within professional qualifications APA 2.04 No (Diagnosed medical conditions) Ensure impartiality and fairness SGFP 1.02 No (Report mirrored prosecution’s narrative) V. Violation of Attorney-Client Privilege and HIPAA Dr. DiFabio, in collaboration with the Public Defender’s office, violating: Attorney-Client Privilege (California Evidence Code § 954) HIPAA (42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6) – Prohibiting Unauthorized Medical Disclosures