Licensure requirements for interjurisdictional forensic evaluations.

Abstract

In our increasingly mobile society, psychologists may be presented with greater opportunities to practice in jurisdictions outside of their licensure. Interjurisdictional practice has been particularly common under circumstances of litigation involving the services of psychological experts. Psychologists practicing elsewhere must abide by local licensing laws, which are not readily accessible. We sought clarification by surveying regulatory boards of the United States, Canada, and U.S. territories. Most jurisdictions allow interjurisdictional practice but with a variety of restrictions. A sizable minority of jurisdictions forbids such practice entirely. Disciplinary action for noncompliance may range from injunction to incarceration. Mobility programs and preventive measures can minimize risk.

Causality of Psychological Injury

“…In Wisconsin, for example, psychologists from other jurisdictions may practice for up to 60 days per year, but must report the nature and extent of that practice if it is more than 20 days in one year. In nine states or provinces, however, interjurisdictional practice is expressly forbidden according to the latest research by the present author (see Table 12.1) (see also Tucillo, DeFilippis, Denney, & Dsurney, 2002;Simon & Shuman, 1999).…”

Forensic Psychology, Psychological Injuries and the Law

“…Further, if the expert does not meet licensing requirements in the given jurisdiction, he or she may not be permitted to do an evaluation and/or testify. In nine states or provinces, interjurisdictional practice (other than testimony) is forbidden: Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan (unless licensed in a contiguous state), Ontario, Newfoundland/ Labrador, Saskatchewan, and South Carolina (see also McLearen et al 2004;Melton et al 2007;Tucillo et al 2002;Simon and Shuman 1999). New Hampshire permits testimony, but if the psychologist testifies regarding treatment recommendations, he or she is in violation of state laws governing the practice of psychology.…”

Parenting plan evaluation standards and guidelines for psychologists: Setting the frame

“…Conversely, psychologists who are not members of an organization or are not licensed in a specific jurisdiction may nevertheless be accountable to the codes, statutes, or rules when performing the work of a psychologist (Drogin, 1999;Simon & Shuman, 1999;Shuman, Connell, Cunningham & Reid, 2003;Tucillo, DeFilippis, Denney, & Dsurney, 2002). For example, a non-APA member who is licensed in a state that has codified the APA Ethics Code may still be held accountable to that code; a psychologist practicing in a state other than the state in which licensure is held is very likely accountable for the rules of practice in that jurisdiction.…”