675.110 Powers
of board; rules; fees.
In addition to the powers otherwise granted under ORS 675.010 to 675.150, the
Oregon Board of Psychology has all powers necessary or proper to:
(1) Determine
qualifications of applicants to practice psychology in this state, prepare,
conduct and grade examinations and license qualified applicants who comply with
the provisions of ORS 675.010 to 675.150 and the rules of the board.
(2) Grant or deny
renewal of licenses and renew licenses that have lapsed for nonpayment of the
renewal fee, subject to the provisions of ORS 675.010 to 675.150.
(3) Suspend or
revoke licenses, subject to ORS 675.010 to 675.150.
(4) Issue letters
of reprimand and impose probationary periods with the authority to restrict the
scope of practice of a licensed psychologist or to require practice under
supervision.
(5) Impose civil
penalties as provided in ORS 675.070.
(6) Restore
licenses that have been suspended or revoked or voided by nonpayment of the
renewal fee.
(7) Collect fees
for application, examination and licensing of applicants, for renewal of
licenses and for issuance of limited permits and use the fees to defray the
expenses of the board as provided in ORS 675.140.
(8) Collect a
delinquent renewal fee for licenses renewed after the deadline for renewal but
before the grace period for renewal has expired.
(9) Investigate
alleged violations of ORS 675.010 to 675.150.
(10) Issue
subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses, take testimony, administer oaths or
affirmations to witnesses, conduct hearings and require the production of
relevant documents in all proceedings pertaining to the duties and powers of
the board.
(11) Enforce ORS
675.010 to 675.150 and exercise general supervision over the practice of
psychology in this state.
(12) Adopt a
common seal.
(13) Formulate a
code of professional conduct for the practice of psychology giving particular
consideration to the Ethical Standards of Psychologists promulgated by the
American Psychological Association.
(14) Establish
standards of service and training and educational qualifications for rendering
ethical psychological services in this state, including the formulation of
standards for the issuance of licenses for areas of special competence.
(15) Formulate
and enforce continuing education requirements for duly licensed psychologists
to ensure the highest quality of professional services to the public.
(16) Deny renewal
of a license, or renewal of a license that has lapsed for nonpayment of the
renewal fee, unless the applicant completes, or provides documentation of
completion within the previous 36 months of:
(a) A one-hour
pain management education program approved by the board and developed based on
recommendations of the Pain Management Commission; or
(b) An equivalent
pain management education program, as determined by the board.
(17) Assess costs
associated with a disciplinary action to the person against whom the board
takes the disciplinary action, as follows:
(a) For total
costs of $3,000 or less, the board may not assess any costs.
(b) For total
costs greater than $3,000 but not greater than $6,000, the board may assess up
to 50 percent of the total costs.
(c) For total
costs greater than $6,000, the board may assess up to 100 percent of the total
costs.
(18) For the
purpose of requesting a state or nationwide criminal records check under ORS
181A.195, require the fingerprints of a person who is:
(a) Applying for
a license issued by the board;
(b) Applying for
renewal of a license issued by the board; or
(c) Under
investigation by the board.
(19) Prescribe,
in consultation with the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and
Therapists, the duties of the Director of the Mental Health Regulatory Agency.
(20) Subject to
the applicable provisions of ORS chapter 183, adopt reasonable rules to carry
out the provisions of ORS 675.010 to 675.150. [1963 c.396 §12; 1973 c.39 §1;
1973 c.777 §12; 1983 c.289 §1; 1985 c.90 §10; 2001 c.987 §12; 2003 c.630 §§1,2;
2005 c.730 §§62,63; 2007 c.94 §1; 2011 c.96 §1; 2017 c.6 §16; 2017 c.104 §13;
2021 c.50 §4; 2025 c.411 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 17× “110 requires the Board to explain in every case why the person subject to sanction had at least constructive knowledge of the standard of professional conduct that has been alleged to have been violated before the alleged violation occurred.”
Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 27 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“070(1) and (2)(i), to discipline psychologists who violate that code. Under that authority, the Board has adopted the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.”
Kerr v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 467 P.3d 754 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“070(2)(h) (2015) and ORS 675.110(12) (2015) if a person has violated “a pro- vision of the code of professional conduct” adopted by the board.”
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “150 by fraud or material misrepresentation; “(i) Has impersonated a licensed psychologist or has allowed another person to use the license of the psychologist; or “(j) Has violated any provision of ORS 675.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.110(10) — 1 case
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“150 by fraud or material misrepresentation; “(i) Has impersonated a licensed psychologist or has allowed another person to use the license of the psychologist; or “(j) Has violated any provision of ORS 675.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.110(12) — 5 cases
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“110 requires the Board to explain in every case why the person subject to sanction had at least constructive knowledge of the standard of professional conduct that has been alleged to have been violated before the alleged violation occurred.”
Villanueva v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 27 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“070(1) and (2)(i), to discipline psychologists who violate that code. Under that authority, the Board has adopted the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.”
Kerr v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 467 P.3d 754 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“070(2)(h) (2015) and ORS 675.110(12) (2015) if a person has violated “a pro- vision of the code of professional conduct” adopted by the board.”
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“150 by fraud or material misrepresentation; “(i) Has impersonated a licensed psychologist or has allowed another person to use the license of the psychologist; or “(j) Has violated any provision of ORS 675.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.110(15) — 2 cases
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“110 requires the Board to explain in every case why the person subject to sanction had at least constructive knowledge of the standard of professional conduct that has been alleged to have been violated before the alleged violation occurred.”
Gilmore v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 725 P.2d 400 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“150 by fraud or material misrepresentation; “(i) Has impersonated a licensed psychologist or has allowed another person to use the license of the psychologist; or “(j) Has violated any provision of ORS 675.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.110(3) — 1 case
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“110 requires the Board to explain in every case why the person subject to sanction had at least constructive knowledge of the standard of professional conduct that has been alleged to have been violated before the alleged violation occurred.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.110(4) — 1 case
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“110 requires the Board to explain in every case why the person subject to sanction had at least constructive knowledge of the standard of professional conduct that has been alleged to have been violated before the alleged violation occurred.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 675.110(5) — 1 case
Cochran v. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 15 P.3d 73 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“110 requires the Board to explain in every case why the person subject to sanction had at least constructive knowledge of the standard of professional conduct that has been alleged to have been violated before the alleged violation occurred.”
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.