Sec. 165.153. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ADDITIONAL HARM. (a) A person commits an offense if the person practices medicine without a license or permit and causes another person:
(1) physical or psychological harm; or
(2) financial harm.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the third degree.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a state jail felony.
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 2004–2018 · leading case:
Green v. State, 137 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004).
Green v. State, 137 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004).
· cites it 2× “15 See Tex. Occ.Code Ann. § 165.153(a)(1), (b). *366 Subtitle B of the occupations code does not define “psychological harm.”
Agripino v. State, 217 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 165.153 (a) (Vernon 2004).”
Diruzzo v. State, 549 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2018).
· cites it 2× “See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 165.153. He argues that the existence of two statutes proscribing the same behavior-but with one statute simultaneously requiring an additional harm element while potentially reducing the grade of the offense-would constitute an absurd result.”
Marcus A. Green v. State, No. 03-02-00727-CR (Tex. App.—Austin May 27, 2004).
· cites it 2× “(15) See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 165.153 (a)(1), (b).”
Marcus A. Green v. State, No. 03-02-00727-CR (Tex. App.—Austin May 27, 2004).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 165.153 (a)(1). The statute currently makes it a third-degree felony to practice medicine in violation of subtitle B without regard to a psychological harm element.”
Tex. Occ. Code § 165.153(a)(1): 1 case
Green v. State, 137 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004).
“15 See Tex. Occ.Code Ann. § 165.153(a)(1), (b). *366 Subtitle B of the occupations code does not define “psychological harm.”
Tex. Occ. Code § 165.153(a)(2): 1 case
Diruzzo v. State, 549 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2018).
“See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 165.153. He argues that the existence of two statutes proscribing the same behavior-but with one statute simultaneously requiring an additional harm element while potentially reducing the grade of the offense-would constitute an absurd result.”
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.