675.020
Practice or representation as psychologist prohibited without license; use of
business name or designation.
(1) To safeguard the people of the State of Oregon from the dangers of
unqualified and improper practice of psychology, no person shall, unless
exempted from the provisions of ORS 675.010 to 675.150 by ORS 675.090:
(a) Practice
psychology in this state without first being licensed under ORS 675.010 to
675.150; or
(b) Represent
oneself to be a psychologist without first being licensed under ORS 675.010 to
675.150.
(2) As used in
subsection (1)(b) of this section, “represent oneself to be a psychologist”
means to use any title or description of services incorporating the words “psychology,”
“psychological,” “psychotherapy” or “psychologist,” or to offer or render to
individuals or to groups of individuals services included in the practice of
psychology.
(3) A
psychologist licensed under ORS 675.010 to 675.150 shall practice under the
name of the psychologist only, but nothing in ORS 675.010 to 675.150 or rules
adopted thereunder shall be deemed to prevent a licensed psychologist from
using an assumed business name or other designation to describe a place,
institution, organization or agency where or in connection with which the
psychologist conducts practice. [1963 c.396 §2; 1971 c.362 §1; 1973 c.777 §2;
1987 c.158 §136; 1993 c.585 §2; 1995 c.810 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 16× “We understand the ALJ to have concluded that, because petitioner made representations that would have misled the public into believing that he held a doctorate in psychology *805 and was a licensed psychologist, he violated ORS 675.020 (1)(b)’s prohibition against representing…”
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology, 533 P.3d 1099 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “]” ORS 675.020. That is, exempting teachers and researchers—who, under the terms of the statute, may not supervise direct psychological services or treat any behavioral, emotional, or mental disorders of individuals—seems unlikely to disturb the purpose of the Oregon licensing…”
Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 942 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“160 and the corollary legal licensing statutes are no different from other professional licensing and regulatory schemes. Defendants’ analysis, if extended in principle, would compel the invalidation of many, and perhaps all, of those analogous statutes.”
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “]” ORS 675.020. That is, exempting teachers and researchers—who, under the terms of the statute, may not supervise direct psychological services or treat any behavioral, emotional, or mental disorders of individuals—seems unlikely to disturb the purpose of the Oregon licensing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.020(1)(a) — 2 cases
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology, 533 P.3d 1099 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“]” ORS 675.020. That is, exempting teachers and researchers—who, under the terms of the statute, may not supervise direct psychological services or treat any behavioral, emotional, or mental disorders of individuals—seems unlikely to disturb the purpose of the Oregon licensing…”
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“]” ORS 675.020. That is, exempting teachers and researchers—who, under the terms of the statute, may not supervise direct psychological services or treat any behavioral, emotional, or mental disorders of individuals—seems unlikely to disturb the purpose of the Oregon licensing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.020(1)(b) — 1 case
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“We understand the ALJ to have concluded that, because petitioner made representations that would have misled the public into believing that he held a doctorate in psychology *805 and was a licensed psychologist, he violated ORS 675.020 (1)(b)’s prohibition against representing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.020(2) — 1 case
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“We understand the ALJ to have concluded that, because petitioner made representations that would have misled the public into believing that he held a doctorate in psychology *805 and was a licensed psychologist, he violated ORS 675.020 (1)(b)’s prohibition against representing…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.020(l)(b) — 1 case
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“We understand the ALJ to have concluded that, because petitioner made representations that would have misled the public into believing that he held a doctorate in psychology *805 and was a licensed psychologist, he violated ORS 675.020 (1)(b)’s prohibition against representing…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.