Texas Association of Psychological Associates v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists and Texas Psychological Association
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8277
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- The Act regulates psychology and created the Board to set master’s-degree licensing standards and adopt rules.
- Board rules require licensed psychological associates (master’s degree holders) to practice under supervision of a licensed psychologist with a doctoral degree.
- TAPA challenged the Board’s supervision rules as beyond statutory authority in a declaratory judgment action; TPA intervened in support of the rules.
- PAAC previously advised on supervision rules; the PAAC was repealed in 2005, and related supervision provisions were removed from the Act.
- The Board’s supervision rules at issue are Tex. Admin. Code §§ 463.1, 465.2, 471.2; trial court held them valid.
- The court reviews statutory authority de novo and defers to agency construction only if ambiguity exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board exceeded its statutory authority. | TAPA argues repeal of PAAC strips authority to require supervision. | Board contends broad licensing standards authorize ongoing supervision. | Board did not exceed its authority; supervision is consistent with licensing standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloom v. Texas State Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists, 475 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1972) (public protection objective supports regulation of practice)
- City of Garland v. Public Util. Comm’n of Tex., 165 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (legislative intent and agency latitude in regulation)
- Texas Orthopaedic Ass’n v. Texas State Bd. of Podiatric Med. Exam’rs, 254 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (implied powers to fulfill express statutory duties)
- Pruett v. Harris County Bail Bond Bd., 249 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. 2008) (broad regulatory powers to revoke licenses for rule violations)
- Kee v. Baber, 303 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. 1957) (agency authority not required to anticipate all circumstances)
- Public Util. Comm’n v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 53 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2001) (deference to agency construction when text is ambiguous)
- Dupont Photomasks, Inc. v. Strayhorn, 219 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (statutory authority and deference in administrative challenges)
- Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Patient Advocates of Tex., 136 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. 2004) (agency powers narrowly construed to carry out statutory duties)
- Gerst v. Oak Cliff Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 432 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. 1968) (absence of express provisions implies agency details may be provided by regulation)