California Association of Psychology Providers v. Rank
California Supreme Court
51 Cal. 3d 1, 270 Cal. Rptr. 796, 793 P.2d 2 (1990)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
In 1983, the Department of Health Services, led by Peter Rank, (defendant) issued regulations to implement Health and Safety Code § 1316.5, which provided that hospital-staffed psychologists could carry out all of the professional responsibilities that were consistent with their licensure and competence. Section 1316.5 expressly prohibited hospitals from discriminating between physicians and psychologists for rendition of services that either could lawfully render. The regulations, however, prohibited hospitals from allowing staffed psychologists to take primary responsibility for diagnosing and treating hospitalized patients. However, the department’s regulations required that psychiatrists take charge of patients who were admitted to hospitals or psychiatric wards. The California Association of Psychology Providers (plaintiff) sought judicial review of the regulations, alleging that they prohibited psychologists from practicing their profession without involvement or supervision contrary to law. A state trial court granted judgment in favor of the association, finding the regulations contrary to the antidiscrimination clause of § 1316.5, declared the regulations invalid, and directed the department to issue new regulations. A state court of appeal reversed the trial court after concluding that the antidiscrimination clause only prohibited requiring psychologists to work under psychiatrists after medical diagnoses and treatments were ruled out. The association appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Broussard, J.)
Dissent (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.