Unbranded Narconons

These are rehab facilities which are using the Narconon sauna and vitamin detox and program written materials, but not using the Narconon name and trademark. It may be unknown whether or not these facilities are licensed by Narconon International, or operating with or without the sanction of Narconon International. The term, "Unbranded Narconons," is not intended to imply a single management; they may fall under different ownership.

Does #1 and #2 v. Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc. and Tranquility Detox

Plaintiffs names are confidential due to Doe #2 having been a minor child while attending the program. Doe #1, the parent, was fraudulently assured that Best Drug Rehabilitation was the only Michigan ' juveniles only' drug rehab program, after being told there were none in Indiana. The claims in this case against Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc (BDR) and Tranquility Detox are for Fraud, Credit Card/Application Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Contract, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. There are 115 statements supporting the above claims, one more disturbing than the next, about the minor child attending Tranquility Detox and Best Drug Rehab, falsehoods told to the parent, and fraudulent actions taken by the defendants in order to make the sale. No one should have to go through what happened, much less a minor child and a caring and vulnerable parent. 2 names mentioned in the complaint are Darwin Dixon, the salesman, and Brian Basil, the interventionist Dixon referred the parent to. Read what they said and did to get the child to arrive. Also, read what happened at Tranquility Detox, then on the long drive from there to the Best Drug Rehab in program in Manistee, MI 2 days later; what was going on there, what the minor was made to deal with before he secretly called home, before BDR director Amber Howe assured the parent that the minor was not telling the truth and they have an 85% success rate. The next day, the minor finally walked away, found a phone, called his family to come get him and waited while they drove 7 hours to rescue him from the traumatic nightmare. This case was settled.

Read more »

Best Drug Rehabilitation v. Does 1, 2 & 3

This case demonstrates why one should never take the word of a rehab program representative that your insurance will cover the program claims. Especially the word of a Narconon or unbranded Narconon program representative, such as the one mentioned in the counter-claim against this lawsuit. Here, Plaintiff Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc, an unbranded Narconon program, owned and operated by high level public scientologist Per Wickstrom, filed a collection type lawsuit in Virginia against 3 family members for 'Breach of Contract' and Unjust Enrichment. The defendants filed their response pro se, meaning without professionallegal representation, and included a counter-claim with accusations that we at Narconon Reviews have all come to see so often. Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc. (BDR, as we tend to call it ) then attempted to squash the defendants' counterclaim by asserting they lacked jurisdiction in VA. Why? Because the contract they had signed stated that all disputes would be heard in the state of Michigan. We had to chuckle at the defendants' response. You will, too, I'm sure. In the end, Best Drug Rehabilitation, Inc. came to see they would get nowhere with this claim, and would be subject to an out-of-state-lawsuit that would expose their deceptive trade and program practices, causing a marketing nightmare should it go any further. Both parties agreed to end their cases by mutual dismissal of both lawsuits before the court. The order includes that the claims of both cases are permanently barred from being reheard by any court again. The documents are easy to read, explosive and damaging to BDR. They reflect sales and program practices and problems encountered, as mentioned in numerous Narconon and unbranded program lawsuits we have documented here at Narconon Reviews. The defendants' names, court location and complaint case number were already redacted when we received documents, but we are familiar with the case from the beginning, and want to thank those who assisted these victims address this lawsuit, particularly the diligent consumers in this case, the volunteer legal advisors who came to their aid and the referrers to them from Virginia and elsewhere. Please take a few minutes to read about professional concerns sent to us regarding what occurred in this case, others like it, and how to avoid being sued: Alert: Insurance Coverage & Collections Issues http://narcononreviews.net/narconon/insurance-covera…ollection-issues/

Read more »

A Forever Recovery – Dept. of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, March 27, 2015

The client made multiple allegations in this complaint including not being advised of Recipient's Rights, or a rights program contact, and being required to submit to random drug testing without a chain of command to secure samples. As a result of this inspection, a recommendation was made for A Forever Recovery to provide Recipient's Rights brochures to each client with a rights program contact. Additionally, the program was required to add language to their policies and procedures on securing all drug screens collected.

Read more »

Best Drug Rehab – Dept. of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, March 4, 2015

Violations substantiated: Physical facilities inadequate for the type of service provided, no annual performance evaluations of staff members, no program director on-site, failure to provide adequate job training to staff members, failure to cooperate with state surveyor inspections, failure to comply with recipient rights regulations, failure to inform clients of the risks and possible side effects of discontinuing prescription medications, violating clients rights to be free from work the facility would otherwise employ someone else to do, accepting clients ineligible for admission, e.g., suicidal, inadequately informing clients about the general nature and objectives of the program, e.g., treatment location, or, the rules of the program, lack of appropriate medical evaluation, assessment and care, non-compliance with client activity regulations, and deviation by the program from the plan of operation for which the facility was originally licensed (10 beds) which adversely affects the character, quality and scope of services provided. Additionally, a program evaluation revealed that 45% of clients leave the program against medical advice.

Read more »

NAFC v. Narconon and Church of Scientology (many defendants)

Plaintiff National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. (NAFC) and Plaintiff American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, Inc. d/b/a American College of Certified Forensic Counselors (ACCFC) are issuing bodies for certifications in the rehab field, including Certified Chemical Dependency Counselor (CCDC), Master Addictions Counselor (MAC), and others. After finding that numerous Narconon and Scientology related entities and persons were (and are) using their certifications and trademarks without authorization, they have filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking to reclaim damages resulting from loss of reputation and money, which resulted in financial enrichment of the 82 defendants, and have asked for an injunction to prevent use in the future. The use of the trademarks implies that the individuals are certified by the Plaintiffs when in fact they are not. This case may have far reaching repercussions on other cases against Narconon.

Read more »