675.070
Authorized sanctions; grounds for imposing sanctions; civil penalty. (1) If any of the grounds
enumerated in subsection (2) of this section exist, the Oregon Board of
Psychology may impose any of the following sanctions:
(a) Deny a
license to an applicant;
(b) Refuse to
renew the license of a psychologist or psychologist associate;
(c) Suspend the
license of a psychologist or psychologist associate for a period of not less
than one year;
(d) Issue a
letter of reprimand;
(e) Impose
probation with authority to restrict the scope of practice of a psychologist or
psychologist associate or require practice under supervision;
(f) Revoke the
license of a psychologist or psychologist associate; or
(g) Impose a
civil penalty as described in subsection (3) of this section.
(2) Subject to
subsection (7) of this section, the board may impose a sanction listed in
subsection (1) of this section against a psychologist or psychologist associate
or applicant, or, if applicable, an unlicensed person found in violation of ORS
675.010 to 675.150, when, in the judgment of the board, the person:
(a) Has an
impairment as defined in ORS 676.303;
(b) Has been
convicted of violation of a law relating to controlled substances;
(c) Has been
convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude;
(d) Is guilty of
immoral or unprofessional conduct or of gross negligence in the practice of
psychology, including but not limited to:
(A) Conduct or
practice contrary to recognized standard of ethics of the psychological
profession or conduct or practice that constitutes a danger to the health or
safety of a patient or the public, or conduct, practice or a condition that
adversely affects a psychologist or psychologist associate’s ability to
practice psychology safely and skillfully.
(B) Willful
ordering or performing of unnecessary tests or studies, administration of
unnecessary treatment, failure to obtain consultations or perform referrals
when failing to do so is not consistent with the standard of care, or otherwise
ordering or performing a psychological service or treatment that is contrary to
recognized standards of practice of the psychological profession;
(e) Has practiced
or attempted to practice medicine without being licensed to do so;
(f) Has obtained
or attempted to obtain a license under ORS 675.010 to 675.150 by fraud or
material misrepresentation;
(g) Has
impersonated a licensed psychologist or psychologist associate or has allowed
another person to use the license of the psychologist;
(h) Has violated
a provision of ORS 675.010 to 675.150 or 675.850 or a provision of the code of
professional conduct formulated under ORS 675.110 (13);
(i) Has obtained
a fee or payment from a patient or third party payer through fraud or
intentional misrepresentation; or
(j)
Notwithstanding ORS 670.280, has been convicted of a sex crime as defined in
ORS 163A.005 or has been convicted in another state or jurisdiction of a crime
that is substantially equivalent to a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005.
(3) The board may
impose a civil penalty under subsection (1) of this section:
(a) In an amount
not to exceed $5,000; or
(b) In an amount
not to exceed $10,000, if any of the following conditions exist:
(A) The conduct
giving rise to the penalty had a serious detrimental effect on the health or
safety of another person;
(B) The person
subject to the penalty has a history of discipline for the same or similar
conduct;
(C) The conduct
giving rise to the penalty involves a willful or reckless disregard of the law;
(D) The conduct
giving rise to the penalty was perpetrated against a minor, an elderly person
or a person with a disability; or
(E) The person
subject to the penalty violated ORS 675.020 by practicing psychology or
representing that the person is a psychologist without having a license.
(4) Except as
provided in subsection (7) of this section, if a conviction described in
subsection (2) of this section is used as grounds for denial, refusal,
suspension, revocation, reprimand, probation or imposition of a civil penalty,
a certified copy of the record of the conviction shall be conclusive evidence.
(5) The board may
license an applicant or renew or restore a license suspended or revoked under
subsection (2)(a) of this section due to a mental health condition if the board
determines that the applicant or former licensed psychologist or former psychologist
associate no longer has an impairment due to a mental health condition.
(6) Except as
provided in subsection (7) of this section, license suspension or revocation in
another state is grounds for license denial or disciplinary action by the
board.
(7) The board may
not suspend or revoke a person’s license to practice psychology, or refuse to
grant a license to practice psychology to a person, because of a conviction or
license suspension or revocation resulting solely from the person’s provision
of psychological services relating to reproductive or gender-affirming health
care that are otherwise lawful in this state but unlawful in the jurisdiction
in which the person provided the services, so long as the services provided
were performed in accordance with the standard of care applicable to the services.
[1963 c.396 §8; 1973 c.777 §10; 1979 c.744 §49; 1985 c.90 §7; 1989 c.44 §1;
1989 c.217 §1; 1989 c.444 §1; 2009 c.441 §1; 2009 c.756 §6; 2015 c.79 §2; 2015
c.611 §1; 2017 c.6 §10; 2017 c.104 §12; 2023 c.228 §31a]
Notes of Decisions
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 14× “020(1)(b) and ORS 675.070 (2)(d). He argues that his use of “PsyA” was not misleading to the public because he also included phrases such as “psychologist associate,” “licensed psychologist associate” or “Portland psychologist associate” immediately following his use of “PsyA.”
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 13× “ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
Bice v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 383 P.3d 913 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “*627 The board concluded that petitioner’s conduct in his sessions with SM violated ORS 675.070(2)(d) 3 (unprofessional conduct), Ethical Standard 2.”
Loomis v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 954 P.2d 839 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “ORS 675.070(2)(d). Unprofessional conduct includes any conduct contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the psychological profession.”
Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 27 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Under that authority, the Board has adopted the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. The ethical rule at issue in this case, Principle 4.”
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology, 533 P.3d 1099 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“ORS 675.070(3)(b)(E) authorizes the board to impose a penalty not to exceed $10,000 where a person is found to have prac- ticed psychology without a license.”
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “085, the Board may deny, suspend or revoke a license of any psychologist who, in the judgment of the Board, has violated any provision of ORS 675.070. 3 The Board concluded: “* * * Dr.”
Bice v. Or. Bd. of Psychology, 437 P.3d 1230 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “" ORS 675.070 (2)(d)(A). In other words, a violation of an applicable ethical standard also qualifies as a violation of ORS 675.”
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“ORS 675.070(3)(b)(E) authorizes the board to impose a penalty not to exceed $10,000 where a person is found to have prac- ticed psychology without a license.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(1) — 4 cases
Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 27 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Under that authority, the Board has adopted the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. The ethical rule at issue in this case, Principle 4.”
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“085, the Board may deny, suspend or revoke a license of any psychologist who, in the judgment of the Board, has violated any provision of ORS 675.070. 3 The Board concluded: “* * * Dr.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(1)(j) — 1 case
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“085, the Board may deny, suspend or revoke a license of any psychologist who, in the judgment of the Board, has violated any provision of ORS 675.070. 3 The Board concluded: “* * * Dr.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2) — 2 cases
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“020(1)(b) and ORS 675.070 (2)(d). He argues that his use of “PsyA” was not misleading to the public because he also included phrases such as “psychologist associate,” “licensed psychologist associate” or “Portland psychologist associate” immediately following his use of “PsyA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2)(d) — 5 cases
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“020(1)(b) and ORS 675.070 (2)(d). He argues that his use of “PsyA” was not misleading to the public because he also included phrases such as “psychologist associate,” “licensed psychologist associate” or “Portland psychologist associate” immediately following his use of “PsyA.”
Bice v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 383 P.3d 913 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“*627 The board concluded that petitioner’s conduct in his sessions with SM violated ORS 675.070(2)(d) 3 (unprofessional conduct), Ethical Standard 2.”
Loomis v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 954 P.2d 839 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“ORS 675.070(2)(d). Unprofessional conduct includes any conduct contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the psychological profession.”
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
Bice v. Or. Bd. of Psychology, 437 P.3d 1230 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“" ORS 675.070 (2)(d)(A). In other words, a violation of an applicable ethical standard also qualifies as a violation of ORS 675.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2)(d)(A) — 5 cases
Wolff v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 395 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“020(1)(b) and ORS 675.070 (2)(d). He argues that his use of “PsyA” was not misleading to the public because he also included phrases such as “psychologist associate,” “licensed psychologist associate” or “Portland psychologist associate” immediately following his use of “PsyA.”
Loomis v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 954 P.2d 839 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“ORS 675.070(2)(d). Unprofessional conduct includes any conduct contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the psychological profession.”
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
Bice v. Or. Bd. of Psychology, 437 P.3d 1230 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“" ORS 675.070 (2)(d)(A). In other words, a violation of an applicable ethical standard also qualifies as a violation of ORS 675.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2)(h) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2)(i) — 1 case
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2Ki) — 1 case
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2Xd) — 1 case
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(2Xi) — 1 case
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 675.070(2XdXA) also authorizes the Board to discipline psychologists who are “guilty of ~ * unprofessional conduct,” but the Board does not appear to have disciplined petitioner for violating that subsection.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(3)(b)(E) — 2 cases
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology, 533 P.3d 1099 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“ORS 675.070(3)(b)(E) authorizes the board to impose a penalty not to exceed $10,000 where a person is found to have prac- ticed psychology without a license.”
Childress v. Bd. of Psychology (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“ORS 675.070(3)(b)(E) authorizes the board to impose a penalty not to exceed $10,000 where a person is found to have prac- ticed psychology without a license.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(l)(e) — 1 case
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“085, the Board may deny, suspend or revoke a license of any psychologist who, in the judgment of the Board, has violated any provision of ORS 675.070. 3 The Board concluded: “* * * Dr.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.070(l)(j) — 1 case
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“085, the Board may deny, suspend or revoke a license of any psychologist who, in the judgment of the Board, has violated any provision of ORS 675.070. 3 The Board concluded: “* * * Dr.”
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.