Chapter 675

      675.010 to 675.150

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Activities of clinical social workers without psychologist licensing, (1981) Vol. 42, p 167

      675.070

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Board of Psychologist Examiners was not required to further define, through rulemaking, ethical standard which petitioner-psychologist was found to have violated through sexual relationships with patients and Board acted within its statutory authority in revoking petitioner’s license to practice. Gilmore v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 81 Or App 321, 725 P2d 400 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

      Even if same facts would support both sanctions, board’s factual findings of unprofessional conduct within an emergency license suspension hearing cannot later support permanent suspension over accused’s request for new hearing. Miller v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 289 Or App 34, 407 P3d 935 (2017)

      Board has discretion to impose penalty up to $10,000 for person practicing psychology without license regardless of amount psychologist was paid for services. Childress v. Board of Psychology, 327 Or App 48, 533 P3d 1099 (2023)

      675.085

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Board’s factual determinations in contested case hearing under ORS chapter 183 for emergency license suspension cannot be applied via claim preclusion to support later permanent suspension proceeding over accused’s request for new contested case hearing. Miller v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 289 Or App 34, 407 P3d 935 (2017)

      675.090

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Exemption from licensing requirement for providing “consulting services to an organization,” as used in this section, does not apply to psychologist’s expert advice and diagnosis of Oregon resident that is passed through organization where psychologist holds only out-of-state license; instead, phrase requires services to be provided to organization for benefit of organization itself. Childress v. Board of Psychology, 327 Or App 48, 533 P3d 1099 (2023)

      675.110

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Board of Psychologist Examiners was not required to further define, through rulemaking, ethical standard which petitioner-psychologist was found to have violated through sexual relationships with patients and Board acted within its statutory authority in revoking petitioner’s license to practice. Gilmore v. Board of Psychologist Examiners, 81 Or App 321, 725 P2d 400 (1986), Sup Ct review denied