Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )

‘, -
TRE~ATTORNEYGENERAI-
OF TEXAS
AWeTIN. Tlss4el 787ll
JOEN I.. EILL
*-- a-Am.
August 12, 1974
The Honorable James D. ,Keister Opinion No. H- 368
Chairman
Texas State Board of Physical Re: Whether “direct super-
Therapy Examiners vision” as used in 0 6 of
3010 Brentwood Article 4512e. V. T. C. S.,
Amarillo, Texas 79106 requires physical presence
of supervising physician to
exempt therapist from
requirement of license.
Dear Chairman Keister:
You have asked us whether “direct supervision” as used in 5 6 of
Article 4512e, V. T. C. S. (Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., ch. 836, p. 2542) requires
the physical presence of a supervising physician in order to effect an exemp-
tion from its provisions for employees performing physical therapy
services in a licensed hospital.
Article 4512e creates the Board of Physical Therapy Examiners,
providea for the licensing of physical therapists and regulationof the
practice of physical ,therapy. By the express provision of §‘6 thereof,
the Act does not apply to certain persons, including “an employee per-
forming services under the direct supervision of a physician in a hospital
licensed under [Article 4437f, V. T. C. S., the Texas Hospital Licensing
Law]. ”
Unlike a “physical therapist” [Set 1 (b)] or a “physical tberapist
assistant” [Sec. 1, (c)l, a physical therapy aide need not be licensed [Sec.
7] or even have an understanding of “physical therapy. I’
We are of the opinion that the term “direct supervision” as used
p. 1720
The Honorable James D. Keister page 2 (H-368)
in Sec. 6 of this statute means “on-site’superviaion” similar to that
required in Sec. 1 (d) when applied to persons having qualifications
equivalent to those of a physical therapy aide. However, when applied
to persons having qualifications equivalent to those of a physical therapist
asistant, it meana only that the physician assumes responaibility for the
care of the patient and the continuing direction and supervision of the
hospital employee to whom selective forms of treatment are delegated,
similar tomthe continuing supervision and direction indicated in Sec. l(a).
Attorney General Opinion C-795 (1966).
We do not believe, therefore, that even “on-site” supervision
necessarily requires the continuous and con’stant physical presence of the
physician during the entire therapy process. If for each occasion the
responsible physiciarrpersonally trains and instructs the hospital employee
in the process~ to ‘be employed and remains reasonably available to inspect,
correct, and direct the work of the employee, we think the provision will
be satisfied though the physician may not be physically present duiing the
entire time the services .are being administered. Bizselle v. State, 116
S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. 1938); cf. Att~orney General Opinion H-27 (1973).
SUMMARY
As used in § 6 of Article 4512e, V. T. C. S., an Act
regulating the practice of physical therapy, the term
“direct supervision” while not requiring the continuous
and constant physical presence of a physician during
the entire therapy process, does conte~mplate that the
physician undertake an active and continuing overview
of therapeutic activities to see that his supervision
control is in fact being implemented.
Very truly yours,
/-I
Attorney General of Texas
p. 1721
-. .
The Honorable James D. Keistex page 3 (H-368)
A PRRqVED:
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 1722