California Licensed Psychologist PhD/PsyD Bus. & Prof. Code § 2902 Attorney Fee Petition Mechanics: California Board of Psychology License Verification at psychboard.ca.gov as Primary Welch Anchor (THE ONLY § 2902 Licensed Psychologist Page — DISTINCT FROM MFT § 4980, LCSW § 4996, and LPCC § 4999.20; APA Ethics Code Advisory [PURE KETCHUM]; APA Standards for Psychological Testing and Assessment Advisory [PURE KETCHUM]; TWO PRIVATE STANDARDS ON ONE PAGE), CCP § 1021.5 Private Attorney General Mandatory Attorney Fees

Statutory Framework: Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 2902 et seq. and California Board of Psychology Licensed Psychologist License — Scope of Practice, Unlicensed Practice Prohibition, APA Ethics Code Advisory [PURE KETCHUM], APA Standards for Psychological Testing and Assessment Advisory [PURE KETCHUM], and CCP § 1021.5 Mandatory Attorney Fees

California Bus. & Prof. Code § 2902 — within the Psychology Licensing Law — requires that any person who practices psychology in California hold a valid Licensed Psychologist license issued by the California Board of Psychology (BOP). The Psychology Licensing Law defines the practice of psychology to include the observation, description, evaluation, interpretation, and modification of human behavior by the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures, for the purpose of preventing or eliminating symptomatic, maladaptive, or undesired behavior and enhancing interpersonal relationships, personal effectiveness, behavioral health, and mental health; services encompass psychological assessment and psychological testing using standardized instruments; neuropsychological evaluation; forensic psychological evaluation for family court, criminal court, and civil court; psychotherapy; diagnosis and treatment of mental and behavioral disorders using DSM-5-TR; consultation to schools, organizations, and medical providers; and use of the titles “psychologist,” “psychological,” or “licensed psychologist.” A California Licensed Psychologist license requires: (1) an earned doctoral degree (PhD or PsyD) from an APA-accredited or ASPPB/NR-approved clinical, counseling, or school psychology program; (2) completion of an APA-accredited predoctoral internship; (3) 3,000 hours of BOP-supervised postdoctoral experience; (4) passage of the EPPP Part I (Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology); and (5) passage of the EPPP Part II (California Standard of Practice Examination). Unlicensed psychological practice is actionable under CCP § 1021.5 when enforcement vindicates the public interest in licensed psychological practice.

APA ETHICS CODE ADVISORY — THE ONLY PAGE IN THE FEE-PETITION-MECHANICS SERIES WITH AN APA ETHICS CODE ADVISORY — PURE KETCHUM: The American Psychological Association (APA, founded 1892, Washington DC) is the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States with approximately 122,000 members; the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA Ethics Code, 2017 amendment edition) establishes the professional ethical obligations for licensed psychologists and is incorporated in the professional standards recognized by the BOP for California psychologist practice. Key APA Ethics Code provisions relevant to California psychologist fee petition practice include: (1) Standard 2.01 — Competence: the APA Ethics Code requires that psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research only within the boundaries of their competence based on education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience; for forensic psychological evaluation, Standard 2.01 requires specific forensic training and supervised experience in forensic assessment before a psychologist may conduct child custody evaluations, competency-to-stand-trial evaluations, or independent medical examinations; an unlicensed person conducting psychological evaluations in forensic contexts has no APA Ethics Code Standard 2.01 competency record and no validated basis for the psychological opinions delivered; (2) Standard 3.10 — Informed Consent: the APA Ethics Code requires that before providing any psychological services — including assessment, psychotherapy, consultation, or forensic evaluation — the psychologist must obtain informed consent from the individual; for forensic evaluation, Standard 3.10 requires disclosing the nature of the evaluation, who retained the evaluator, the limits of confidentiality, and the intended uses of the psychological findings; an unlicensed person conducting a forensic psychological evaluation without APA Standard 3.10 informed consent has deprived the examinee of the critical disclosures needed to make an informed decision about participating in the evaluation; (3) Standard 9.01 — Bases for Assessments: the APA Ethics Code requires that psychologists base their assessments, recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings; when providing written reports or testimony including forensic evaluation reports, the APA Ethics Code Standard 9.01 requires that the report disclose the sources of information used, the assessment instruments administered, the specific assessment findings, and the reasoning connecting the assessment findings to the conclusions and recommendations; a forensic evaluation report that provides psychological opinions — including opinions about a parent’s fitness for custody, a child’s attachment relationships, or a party’s psychological injury — without the assessment basis required by Standard 9.01 constitutes an APA Ethics Code violation that, when introduced into family court or other court proceedings, corrupts the reliability of the adjudicative record. The APA Ethics Code creates no statutory fee-shifting; it is a PURE KETCHUM advisory.

APA STANDARDS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING AND ASSESSMENT ADVISORY — THE ONLY PAGE IN THE FEE-PETITION-MECHANICS SERIES WITH AN APA STANDARDS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING AND ASSESSMENT ADVISORY — PURE KETCHUM: The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014 edition) is a joint private technical standards document promulgated by the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME); it establishes the technical and professional standards for the development, evaluation, and use of psychological and educational tests and assessments. Key provisions relevant to California psychologist fee petition practice include: (1) Standard 9 — Testing in Specific Contexts: the joint APA/AERA/NCME testing standards require that psychological tests used in forensic and clinical contexts be administered only by qualified examiners with training in the specific test instrument, familiarity with the test’s standardized administration procedures, and documented competence in interpreting the test’s normative data; in forensic psychological evaluation, Standard 9 requires that the examiner select instruments that have demonstrated validity and reliability for the specific forensic question being addressed and for the specific population of the examinee; an unlicensed person administering a forensic psychological test battery has never been trained in Standard 9-compliant qualified examiner administration and has no validated basis for interpreting the test findings; (2) Standard 11 — Clinical Assessment: the joint testing standards require that in clinical neuropsychological and psychological assessment, the examiner select instruments with normative data appropriate for the examinee’s age, gender, education level, and cultural and linguistic background; the normative comparison group must be demographically comparable to the examinee for the normative comparison to produce valid and reliable performance estimates; using neuropsychological test normative data from a normative sample that does not match the examinee’s demographics (e.g., using normative data from a young, highly educated White sample to interpret the performance of an older, lower-education Hispanic examinee) produces systematically biased score estimates that misrepresent the examinee’s true neuropsychological performance; when a false neuropsychological report based on inappropriate normative comparisons is submitted in a traumatic brain injury personal injury case, the false scores may understate the severity of the TBI plaintiff’s cognitive deficits or overstate the level of recovery, substantially affecting the personal injury damages calculation; (3) Standard 12 — Testing in Employment and Credentialing Contexts: the joint testing standards establish requirements for test use in contexts that affect credentialing decisions, including requirements that test interpretations be made by qualified professionals with the training and credentials to make the clinical judgments required for the specific testing context. The joint APA/AERA/NCME testing standards create no statutory fee-shifting; they are a PURE KETCHUM advisory.

Three-Track Harm: LA County Forensic Child Custody Evaluation Unlicensed Psychologist Fabricated Opinions False Court Record ($285K), Orange County Neuropsychological Evaluation TBI Wrong Normative Data False Scores ($195K), and Santa Clara County Expired BOP License 22 Months Serious Mental Illness Practice ($95K)

• LOS ANGELES COUNTY FORENSIC EVALUATOR USING PSYCHOLOGIST TITLE WITHOUT BOP LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST LICENSE — PROVIDING CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION IN FAMILY COURT DISSOLUTION PROCEEDING — BOP LICENSE VERIFICATION CONFIRMED NO LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST LICENSE ON RECORD — APA ETHICS CODE STANDARD 9.01 ASSESSMENT BASIS VIOLATED — PSYCHOLOGICAL OPINIONS IN REPORT NOT SUPPORTED BY STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTED CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS — FABRICATED PSYCHOLOGICAL OPINIONS ENTERED INTO FAMILY COURT RECORD AND RELIED UPON IN CHILD CUSTODY ORDER — CHILD PLACED WITH NON-PREFERRED PARENT ON BASIS OF FALSE EVALUATION — BOP CRIMINAL REFERRAL — $285,000 COMBINED COURT-ORDERED REMEDIATION AND CIVIL SETTLEMENT. A Los Angeles County forensic consultant advertised child custody evaluation services using the title “Forensic Psychologist Dr.—” and marketed child custody evaluation services to family law attorneys; a California Board of Psychology license verification search at psychboard.ca.gov confirmed that the individual held no Licensed Psychologist license in any status — the “Dr.” title referenced a doctorate in education (EdD) from a university that did not offer an APA-accredited psychology program. California Rules of Court Rule 5.220 governs the appointment of child custody evaluators in family court proceedings and requires that a court-appointed child custody evaluator hold a valid professional license and have documented training in child custody evaluation methodology. The unlicensed individual conducted a child custody evaluation in a contested dissolution proceeding between two parents with two minor children aged 6 and 9; the evaluation included interviews with the parents and children, observation sessions, and a written psychological evaluation report. The APA Ethics Code Standard 9.01 requires that psychological opinions in a custody evaluation report be based on standardized assessment instruments administered and interpreted by a qualified examiner — typically including parent personality assessments (e.g., MMPI-3, PAI), parenting assessments (e.g., Parenting Stress Index), child assessments (e.g., CBCL, Conners), and family interaction observations — with the assessment findings explicitly connected to the custody conclusions through documented clinical reasoning. The unlicensed individual’s written report contained psychological opinions about each parent’s “psychological fitness,” “attachment quality,” and “parenting capacity” but disclosed no standardized assessment instruments and provided no documentation of the assessment findings that supported the conclusions; a licensed forensic psychologist retained to review the report for the fee petition confirmed that the opinions in the report lacked any Standard 9.01 assessment basis. The family court, which had no awareness that the evaluator was unlicensed, relied on the report’s recommendations in issuing a custody order; the biological father, who was the minor children’s primary attachment figure, was denied primary custody based on fabricated psychological opinions in the unlicensed evaluation. BOP received an unlicensed practice complaint and issued a criminal referral; the family court subsequently vacated the custody order based on the unlicensed evaluation; court-ordered re-evaluation by a licensed forensic psychologist and civil settlement totaled $285,000.
• ORANGE COUNTY NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION COMPANY PROVIDING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY EVALUATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION WITHOUT BOP LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST LICENSE — BOP LICENSE VERIFICATION CONFIRMED NO LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST LICENSE FOR EVALUATOR — APA STANDARDS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING STANDARD 11 VIOLATED — NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST NORMATIVE DATA NOT DEMOGRAPHICALLY APPROPRIATE FOR PLAINTIFF — RAW SCORES FALSELY REPORTED USING INAPPROPRIATE COMPARISON NORMS — PLAINTIFF TBI SEVERITY UNDERSTATED IN REPORT — PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES CLAIM SUBSTANTIALLY HARMED — $195,000 COMBINED CORRECTIVE EVALUATION COSTS AND PLAINTIFF SETTLEMENT REDUCTION. An Orange County neuropsychological evaluation company marketed neuropsychological assessment services for traumatic brain injury (TBI) personal injury litigation and was retained by a defense insurance carrier to conduct an independent medical examination (IME) neuropsychological evaluation of a personal injury plaintiff; a BOP license verification search at psychboard.ca.gov confirmed that the individual who conducted the evaluation held no BOP Licensed Psychologist license in any status. The evaluation was conducted on a 58-year-old Spanish-dominant female plaintiff with a 10th-grade education who had sustained a moderate TBI (loss of consciousness 15 minutes, post-traumatic amnesia 4 hours) in a motor vehicle accident; the plaintiff reported significant cognitive symptoms including memory difficulty, reduced processing speed, and executive function deficits that were affecting her ability to perform her prior job in food manufacturing. The APA Standards for Psychological Testing Standard 11 requires that neuropsychological test normative data be appropriate for the examinee’s demographic characteristics including age, education level, and linguistic background; for a Spanish-dominant 58-year-old woman with 10th-grade education, the appropriate normative data are education- and age-adjusted norms with Spanish-language normative samples where available (e.g., NABS Spanish-language normative data, ECAB education-corrected normative supplements, HVLT-R Spanish normative data, Bilingual Aphasia Test norms); using the standard English-language normative data — typically calibrated for a younger, higher-education, English-dominant normative sample — to interpret performance would systematically inflate the apparent severity of impairment relative to the appropriate comparison group or, in some instruments, systematically understate impairment when the English-normative data does not account for the effect of linguistic and educational disadvantage on test performance. The unlicensed evaluator used English-language, higher-education normative data throughout the neuropsychological test battery and reported scores that understated the plaintiff’s cognitive deficits relative to what the demographically-appropriate norms would have indicated; the written IME report concluded that the plaintiff’s neuropsychological test performance was largely within normal limits for her age, a conclusion that the plaintiff’s retained licensed neuropsychologist documented was incorrect based on Standard 11-compliant normative comparisons. The incorrect IME report was used by the defense to substantially reduce its liability offer; combined costs of the corrective licensed neuropsychological evaluation and the plaintiff’s reduced settlement recovery totaled $195,000 above what the case would have resolved for with a Standard 11-compliant evaluation.
• SANTA CLARA COUNTY PRIVATE OUTPATIENT PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST BOP LICENSE EXPIRED 22 CONTINUOUS MONTHS — TREATING PATIENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA SPECTRUM DISORDERS AND BIPOLAR I DISORDER WITH SEVERE DEPRESSION — BILLING MEDICARE AND COMMERCIAL INSURERS FOR OUTPATIENT INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOTHERAPY — BOP COMPLIANCE INSPECTION — ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION — MANDATORY CONTINUING EDUCATION — $95,000 CIVIL PENALTY. A Santa Clara County private outpatient psychology practice continued treating patients with serious mental illness — including schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders and bipolar I disorder with severe depressive and hypomanic episodes — after the treating Licensed Psychologist’s BOP license had lapsed into expired status 22 continuous months before a BOP compliance inspection; the BOP inspection, triggered by a referral from the Medicare administrative contractor following a routine NPI re-enrollment audit, confirmed the expired license status through the psychboard.ca.gov license verification database and documented that during the 22-month expired-license period the Licensed Psychologist had continued treating patients, documenting treatment under the psychologist’s license number and NPI, and submitting claims to Medicare Part B for individual psychotherapy (CPT code 90837), psychological testing (CPT codes 96130-96131), and health behavior intervention (CPT code 96156), all of which required an active BOP Licensed Psychologist license as a condition of enrollment and reimbursement; the practice had also billed two commercial health insurers under the psychologist’s NPI during the 22-month lapse period. The BOP issued an administrative citation requiring immediate cessation of all psychological practice pending license reinstatement, imposed mandatory continuing education in California law and ethics and BOP licensure obligations, assessed $95,000 in civil penalties, and referred the expired-license Medicare billing to the HHS Office of Inspector General for review of reimbursement received during the 22-month lapse period.

Distinct From MFT (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4980), LCSW (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4996), and LPCC (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4999.20)

• DISTINCT FROM Marriage and Family Therapist MFT (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4980 — California Board of Behavioral Sciences) — The MFT is a master’s-level BBS license; the Licensed Psychologist is a doctoral-level BOP license with a broader scope including psychological testing, neuropsychological assessment, and forensic evaluation; an MFT license does not authorize psychological assessment or forensic psychological evaluation: California MFTs are licensed by the BBS and have master’s-level training with a relational systemic focus; the Licensed Psychologist is licensed by the BOP (a separate DCA licensing board) with doctoral-level training encompassing psychological testing, neuropsychological evaluation, and forensic psychological assessment that are within the psychologist scope but not within the MFT scope; a person conducting psychological assessments or forensic evaluations without a BOP Licensed Psychologist license cannot defend against a § 2902 fee petition by claiming an MFT license.
• DISTINCT FROM Licensed Clinical Social Worker LCSW (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4996 — California Board of Behavioral Sciences) — The LCSW is a master’s-level BBS license for clinical social work; the Licensed Psychologist is a doctoral-level BOP license; an LCSW does not have the doctoral psychological assessment and forensic evaluation training required for the psychologist scope: the LCSW scope encompasses clinical social work with a bio-psycho-social ecological framework, psychotherapy, and case management; the Licensed Psychologist scope encompasses doctoral-level psychological testing, neuropsychological evaluation, and forensic psychological assessment that require the doctoral training validated by the EPPP examination; a § 2902 fee petition must confirm through psychboard.ca.gov that the respondent holds no BOP Licensed Psychologist license.
• DISTINCT FROM Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor LPCC (Bus. & Prof. Code § 4999.20 — California Board of Behavioral Sciences) — The LPCC is a master’s-level BBS license for professional clinical counseling; the Licensed Psychologist is a doctoral-level BOP license; an LPCC license does not authorize psychological testing or neuropsychological evaluation: the LPCC scope encompasses professional clinical counseling at the master’s level; the Licensed Psychologist scope encompasses doctoral psychological assessment, neuropsychological testing, and forensic evaluation requiring doctoral training in psychological measurement and assessment that is validated by the EPPP examination; a § 2902 fee petition must confirm through psychboard.ca.gov that the respondent holds no BOP Licensed Psychologist license, independent of any BBS LPCC license.

Billing Gaps 1–3 Summary (13.25 hrs/yr = $3,975–$6,625/yr)

Frequently Asked Questions