Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1969 )


Menu:
  •                           September 4, 1969
    Honorable Preston Smith         Opinion NO. M-463
    Governor of Texas
    Austin, Texas                   Re:    Validity of Senate Bill 667,
    Acts of 61at Legislature,
    Regular Session, 1969 re-
    lating to licensing of
    Dear Governor Smith:                   psychologists
    Your request for an opinion on the validity of
    Senate Bill 667, Acts of 61at Legislature, Regular Session,
    1969, Chapter 713, Page 2059 (codified in Vernon's as
    Article 4512C, Vernon's Civil Statutes), asks the following
    questions:
    "1 . Does this caption meet the constitutional
    requirement of giving notice to the public in
    that it makes no reference to the definition
    of who is a 'psychologist'; it makes no reference
    to qualifications of members of the Board; it
    makes no reference to the qualifications of appli-
    cants for examination for certification; it makes
    no reference to exemptions from the act; it makes
    no reference to cancellation or suspension of
    licenses or certificates; and it makes no refer-
    ence to criminal penalties for violations of the
    act?
    " 2 . Does Section 4 of this Act establishing
    staggered three year terms violate the provisions
    of Article XVI, Section 30 or Article XVI, Section
    30a, of the Texas Constitution?
    " 3 . Is the definition of the term 'psycholo-
    gists' within Section 2(b) and (c) of this Act
    so vague and indefinite that it is impossible of
    interpretations and enforcement in view of Wilson
    v. State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, 298
    S.W+2d 946 and Ex Parte Halsted, 
    182 S.W.2d 479
    ?
    -2293-
    Hon. Preston Smith, Page 2 (~-463)
    "4 . Is any other provision of this Act in
    conflict with the laws and Constitution of this
    State or these United States?"
    Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution of
    Texas provides:
    "No bill, (except general appropriation
    bills, which may embrace the various subjects
    and accounts, for and on account of which moneys
    are appropriated) shall contain more than one
    subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
    But if any subject shall be embraced in an act,
    which shall not be expressed in the title, such
    act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as
    shall not be so expressed."
    Although the above provision is mandatory
    upon the Legislature, it should be given a liberal construction.
    C&nom   v. Hemphill, 
    7 Tex. 184
    (1851); State v. Praetorians,
    
    143 Tex. 565
    , 186 S.W.Zd 973, 
    158 A.L.R. 596
    (1945).
    The purpose of this section is to afford legislators and other
    interested people a ready and reasonably accurate means of
    knowledge of the contents of bills without their having to read
    the full text. Falkner v. Allied Finance Company of Bay City, 
    394 S.W.2d 208
    , (Civ.App. 1965, error ref. n.r.e.1; Schlichting v.
    Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 
    310 S.W.2d 557
    (Sup.Ct.
    ‘1958); Board of Water Engineers v. City of San Antonio, 
    155 Tex. 111
    , 283 S.W.Zd 722 (1955). Therefore, it is not necessary
    that the caption state the details of the provisions of the Act
    so long as the reader of the caption is not misled as to the
    real contents of the Bill. State v. McCracken, 
    42 Tex. 383
    (1875);
    Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortgage Co., 
    82 Tex. 496
    , 
    17 S.W. 840
    (1891); English & Scottish-American Mortgage & Investment Co.,
    Ltd. v. Hardy, 
    93 Tex. 289
    , 
    55 S.W. 169
    (1900). However, if the
    reader of the caption is misled, and the bill actually deals
    with a different-subject than that contained in the caption, or
    contains provisions not contemplated, or contains provisions to
    which no fair notice was given in the caption, the act will be
    in violation of Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution of
    Texas. Board of Water Engineers v. City of San 
    Antonio, supra
    ;
    Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 55 v. Carr, 372
    -2294-
    Bon. Preston Smith, Page 3 (M-463)
    S.W.2d 523 (Sup.Ct. 1963); Fletcher v. State, 
    439 S.W.2d 656
    (Sup.Ct. 1969); White v. State, 
    440 S.W.2d 660
    (Tex.Crim. 1969).
    The caption of Senate Bill 667 provides:
    "An Act concerning the profession of
    Psychology; requiring certification and
    licensing of psychologists; establishing a
    Texas State Board of Examiners of Psycholo-
    gists i making an appropriation and declaring
    an emergency."
    The body of the Bill provides for the certification and licensing
    of Psychologists, establishes a Texas State Board of Examiners
    of Psychologists, and makes provisions for the duties of the
    Board, qualifications of applicants and other related provisions.
    It is our opinion that a reader of the caption is given fair
    notice of the purpose and intent of the Act and, therefore, the
    caption meets the requirements of Section 35 of Article III of the
    Constitution of Texas.
    Section 30 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas
    provides that the duration of all offices not fixed by this
    Constitution shall never exceed two years. Section 30a of
    Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas provides:
    "The Legislature may provide by law that the
    members of the Board of Regents of the State
    University and boards of trustees or managers of
    the educational, eleemosynary, and penal institu-
    tions of the State, and such-boards-as have been,
    or may hereafter be established by law, may hold
    their respective offices for the term of six (6)
    years, one-third of the members of such boards
    to be elected or appointed every two (2) years in
    such manner as the Legislature may determine;
    vacancies in such offices to be filled as may be
    provided by law, and the Legislature shall enact
    suitable laws to give effect to this section."
    (emphasis added).
    -229%
    Hon. Preston Smith, Page 4 (M-463)
    Section 4 of Senate Bill 667 provides:
    "There is hereby created the Texas State
    Board of Examiners of Psychologists which shall
    consist of six qualified persons appointed by
    the governor with the atlviceand consent of
    the Senate. The,members of the first Board shall
    be appointed within ninety days after this Act
    takes effect to serve the following terms; two
    members for one year, two members for two years,
    and two members for three years from the date of
    their appointment. Thereafter, at the expiration
    of the term of each member, the governor shall
    appoint a successor for a term of three years.
    Before, entering upon the duties of his office,
    each member of the Board shall take the consti-
    tutional oath of office and file it with the
    Secretary of State."
    It is evident that Section 30 of Article XVI of
    the Constitution of Texas limits the terms of office to two
    years, unless a different term of office is authorized by
    other constitutional provisions. Section 4 of Senate Bill 667
    does not comply with Section 30a; and since the terms fixed
    by Section 4 are not authorized by any other constitutional
    provision, such section is invalid.
    Section 31 of Article XVI of the Constitution of
    Texas provides:
    "The Legislature may pass laws prescribing
    the qualifications of practitioners of medicine
    in this State, and to punish persons for mal-
    practice, but no preference shall ever be given
    by law to any schools of medicine." (emphasis added).
    The purpose of Section 31 of Article XVI of the Constitution of
    Texas is stated in Ex Parte Kalsted, 
    182 S.W.2d 479
    (Tex.Crim.
    1944) as follows:
    "We come now to a determination of whether
    the Act before us is violative of the non-
    preference clause of Art. 16, Sec. 31, of our
    -2296-
    hon. Preston Smith, Page 5 (M-463)
    State Constitution. Said Section is a part
    of the Constitution of 1876, and has remained
    unchanged through the years. It is and has
    been the basis upon which has rested the legis-
    lative control over, and definition of, the prac-
    tice of medicine. It furnishes the direct reasons
    why the courts have steadfastly held that, if
    one treats or offers to treat, as a business,
    profession, or avocation, diseases or disorders
    of the human body--by any method, system, or means--
    he must first qualify himself to do so by taking
    the same examination that is required..ofall
    others doing the,same thing, regardless of the
    system employed. Not only was such interpretation
    authorized, but same was required by that provision
    of said Art. 16, Sec. 31, which says that 'No
    preference shall ever be given by law to any schools
    of medicine.' The term 'schools of medicine,'
    as there used, means, and has reference to, the
    system, means, or method employed, or the schools
    of thought as accepted, by the practitioner. Such
    is exemplified by Chapter 12, Acts 27th Legislature,
    1901, wherein the Legislature created three separate
    Boards of Medical Examiners in this State,.each
    representing a particular system, method, or school
    of thought, for the treatment of disease, that is,
    a Board of Examiners for the allopaths, one for
    the homeopaths, and one for the eclectics. now-
    ever, the subjects embraced in the examination
    required for license under either Board were the
    same, such requirement being necessary ,in order
    that there be no preference between the three differ-
    ent schools of thought. The Act of 1901 was super-
    ceded by our present Medicinal Practice Act, passed
    in 1907, c. 123.
    "Under the Medical Practice Act, one desiring
    to practice medicine must possess certain qualifi-
    cations as to character and educational attainments,
    Art. 4501, R.C.S., and must pass a satisfactory
    examination upon certain basic    subjects, Art. 4503,
    R.C.S.”     (emphasis added).
    -2297-
    HOIl.   Preston Smith, Page 6 (M-463)
    The Court concluded that the Legislature could not carve out
    of the field of the healing art a single system for treating
    diseases and disorders and give such system special treat-
    ment limiting the use thereof to those only who qualify.
    The Court held that such legislation violates Section 31 of
    Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas.
    The same conclusion was reached in Wilson v. State
    Board of Naturopathic Examiners, 
    298 S.W.2d 946
    (Tex.Civ.App.
    1957 error ref. n.r.e.), cert. denied 
    355 U.S. 870
    , 78 Sup.
    Ct. 121, 2 L ed 2d 76, wherein the Court construed the
    Naturopathic Act as authorizing and not denying the practice
    of medicine in specialized fields and giving,preference to
    naturopathy in violation of Section 31 of Article XVI of the
    Constitution of Texas. Thus, it has been held that where
    an Act both authorizes and prohibits simultaneously the
    practice of medicine, such Act is either in violation of
    Section 31 of Article XVI of the Constitution or is void for
    vaaueness since the Act will be incapable of enforcement. Ex
    Paste 
    Halsted, supra
    ; Wilson v. State Board of Naturopathic-
    
    Examiners, supra
    .
    Section 3 of Senate Bill 667 provides.:
    "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
    permitting the practice of medicine as defined
    by the laws of this state."
    The practice of medicine is defined in Article 4510, Vernon's
    Civil Statutes and Article 741, Vernon's Penal Code, as follows:
    "Any person shall be regarded as practicing
    medicine within the meaning of this law:
    (1) Who shall publicly profess to be a physician
    or surgeon and shall diagnose, treat, or offer to
    treat, any disease or disorder, mental or ,physical,
    or any physical deformity or injury, by any system
    or method, or to effect cures thereof;
    (2) or who shall diagnose, treat or offer to treat
    any disease or disorder, mental or physical or any
    physical deformity or injury by any system or
    method and to effect cures thereof and charge therefor,
    directly or indirectly, money or other compensation;"
    -2298-
    Bon. Preston Smith, Page 7 (M-463)
    Section 3 of Senate Bill 667 specifically provides that its
    provisions shall not permit the practice of medicine as defined
    by the laws of this state and an examination of the remaining
    provisions of the Senate Bill 667 does not reveal any provisions
    which would authorize a licensee to diagnose, treat, or offer
    to treat, any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any
    physical deformity or injury by any system or method or to
    effect cures thereof.
    "Psychiatry" is a branch of medicine that relates to
    mental diseases and deals with the science and practice of
    treating mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders. Wallach v.
    Monarch Life Insurance Co., 
    295 N.Y.S.2d 109
    , 111 (
    58 Misc. 2d 202
    1968); Mashak v. Poelker, 
    356 S.W.2d 713
    , 720 (Mo.App. 1962).
    Psychology on the other hand is the study of an individual's
    mental characteristics as memory intelligence,,emotionality,
    intelligence, or speed of reaction. Calhoun,v,;Members of
    Board of Education, City of Atlanta, 188 FrSupp. 401, 409, (1959).
    Section 2 of Senate Bill 667 contains the following definitions:
    "(b) A person represents himself to be a
    'psychologist' within the meaning of this Act
    when he holds himself out to the public by any
    title or description of services incorporating
    the words 'psychological,' 'psychologists,' or
    'psychology,' or offers to render or renders
    services to individuals, corporations, or the
    public for compensation.
    "(c) The term 'psychological services,' means
    acts or behaviors coming within the purview of
    the practice of psychology."
    Therefore, a psychiatrist in Texas is an individual who has been
    issued a license to practice medicine in this state by the
    Texas Board of Medical Examiners and specializes in the treat-
    ment of mentally ill individuals, while a psychologist in Texas
    has not been issued a license to practice medicine in this
    state, is not authorized to practice medicine, and is not
    permitted to treat or offer to treat mentally ill persons.
    No provision in Senate Bill 667 permits the performance of any
    act constituting the practice of medicine. See Attorney General
    -2299-
    Hon. Preston Smith, Page 8 (M-463)
    Opinion No. M-453(1969). Therefore, the conflict referred to
    in Ex Parte 
    Halsted, supra
    , and Wilson v. State Board of
    Naturopathic 
    Examiners, supra
    , does not exist in Senate Bill 667.
    Thus, we conclude that the provisions of Senate Bill 667
    neither violate Section 31 of the Constitution of Texas nor
    is it void for the vagueness or uncertainty described in Wilson
    v. State Board of Naturopathic 
    Examiners, supra
    , and Ex Parte
    
    Halsted, supra
    .
    In answer to the fourth question, it is our opinion
    that with the exception of Section 4 of Senate Bill 667 referred
    to above, no other provision of this Act which has come to our
    attention appears to be in conflict withany provision of the
    Constitution of this State or of the United States.
    SUMMARY
    -------
    The provisions of Senate Bill 667, Acts of
    61st Legislature, Regular Session, 1969, Chapter
    713, Page 2059 (relating to licensing of Psycholo-
    gists) are not in violation of either Section 35 of
    Article III of the Constitution of Texas or Section 31
    of Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas. Section
    4 of Senate Bill 667 prescribing terms for Board mem-
    bers for three years is in violation of Section 30 of
    Article XVI of the Constitution of Texas.
    General of Texas
    Prepared by John Reeves
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    tieorgeKelton, Vice Chairman
    Bill Corbusier
    Houghton Brownlee, Jr.
    -2300-
    . .,
    Hon. Preston Smith, Page 9 (M-463)
    Sarah E. Phillips
    Harold Kennedy
    MEADE F. GRIFFIN
    Staff Legal Assistant
    HAWTHORNE PHILLIPS
    Executive Assistant
    NOLA WHITE
    First Assistant
    -2301-