South Carolina Code of Regulations Chapter 100 - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION- STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Overview of Chapter 100 — SC Board of Examiners in Psychology
This chapter is part of the South Carolina Code of Regulations, under the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (LLR). The Board of Examiners in Psychology regulates licensing, ethics, supervision, continuing education, advertising, etc., for psychologists in South Carolina.
Statutory authority for these regulations is from SC Code §§ 40‑1‑70 and 40‑55‑40(d).
Here are the major sections and their core components:
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| 100‑1 Application for License to Practice Psychology | Requirements for academic training (doctoral degree, accredited institutions), supervised experience, examinations (written & oral), etc. |
| 100‑2 Examinations | Details on the required written exam (the Examination for the Professional Practice of Psychology), oral exam, scheduling, passing criteria. |
| 100‑3 Renewal of Licenses | How license renewal works: fees, forms, reporting of supervised unlicensed employees, late fees, expiration, possible reinstatement under certain conditions. |
| 100‑4 Code of Ethics | The regulation incorporates by reference the APA Code of Ethics; standards for competence, representation, confidentiality, dual relationships, supervision, etc. |
| 100‑6 Advertising | Rules for how psychologists may advertise: must be accurate, not misleading; must accurately represent qualifications, affiliations, specialties; base public statements on scientifically acceptable findings. |
| 100‑8 Supervision of Unlicensed Persons | Guidelines for employing/unlicensed persons in psychological service: supervisor must be a licensed psychologist, be responsible for supervision, ensure unlicensed person’s work is appropriate, ensure clients know the status of service provider, etc. |
| 100‑10 Continuing Education Credits | Minimum number of credits needed in a renewal period (biennial), breakdown into categories (A and B), and rules about sources, reporting, penalties if credits are not documented. |
Additional sections cover fees, board organization, etc.
Key Legal / Regulatory Principles
From the text of the regulations, several legal/ethical principles arise:
Competence — Psychologists must practice only in areas in which they have demonstrated education/training/experience. New techniques/services require appropriate training or consultation, and clients must be informed if a service is innovative or has risk.
Supervision & Responsibility — Supervising licensed psychologists bear ultimate responsibility for the work of unlicensed persons under their supervision. Records must be kept. The supervisee’s status must be clear.
Ethical Conduct & Advertising — Psychologists must not misrepresent qualifications, must maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, ensure advertising is truthful, etc.
Due Process & Licensing Requirements — The Board has authority to accept or reject applications based on whether applicants have met training and experience criteria, passed required examinations, etc. There is renewal procedure, and penalties for late renewal. J
Continuing Education — Licensees are required to stay current via education; failure to do so can lead to penalties.
Case Law Example: Hartzell v. State Board of Examiners in Psychology (1980)
One of the most relevant cases under these regulations is Hartzell v. State Board of Examiners in Psychology, 274 S.C. 502, 265 S.E.2d 265 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, decided April 14, 1980).
Facts
Hartzell applied for licensure as a psychologist in South Carolina. His application was denied by the Board.
The Board’s reason: his doctoral psychology program lacked sufficient training in certain “substantive content areas” required by their guidelines. In short, the Board found that his academic training did not meet the content requirements.
Hartzell also challenged the statutory mechanism under which Board members were appointed, claiming it violated the South Carolina Constitution’s requirement about appointment powers. He claimed that the Board’s composition or appointment process was constitutionally flawed.
Issues
Whether the Board validly rejected his application because his doctoral program lacked sufficient content in required areas.
Whether the statute under which Board members are appointed violated the State Constitution (appointment powers). Specifically, whether the private psychology association’s involvement improperly restricted who could be appointed.
Holding
The Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the Board’s decision denying Hartzell’s application. It found that the Board’s requirement for substantive content in the doctoral program was valid under the enabling statutes. Thus the Board was within its powers to assess whether educational programs met the required content.
Regarding the constitutional challenge: the Court rejected Hartzell’s claim that the appointment statute was unconstitutional. The Court held that the statute did not require membership in the private South Carolina Psychological Association as a prerequisite to being on the Board — that is, the statute allowed appointment by the Governor from candidates who met qualifications, even though the Association might submit names. So it did not violate the constitutional appointive power.
How the Regulations & Case Law Fit Together
The regulations (Chapter 100) give the Board detailed authority to set licensure standards (education, supervised experience, examinations). Hartzell shows that the Board’s enforcement of such standards is upheld, so long as they are consistent with statute.
The Board also has the power to reject applications where educational credentials do not meet specified content or accreditation requirements. Hartzell confirms that those academic content standards are enforceable.
The constitutional framework: licensing boards must be constituted in a way consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. If a board’s appointment or composition rule effectively delegates appointment authority improperly to private bodies, that can be a constitutional issue, but Hartzell held that under the statute at issue, that particular arrangement was valid.
The case underlines that applicants must ensure their training programs comply with the Board’s requirements (e.g. include required substantive areas), or else applications may be denied.
Potential Areas of Dispute / Enforcement under Chapter 100
Based on the regulations and the precedent:
Disputes about whether a particular doctoral program’s curriculum satisfies the content requirements. (As in Hartzell.)
Disagreements over whether an applicant has completed the required supervised professional experience (predoctoral / postdoctoral) in the specialty for which licensure is sought.
Appeals over Board decisions denying licenses, or over disciplinary actions (e.g. ethics, advertising, improper supervision).
Cases over renewal compliance (for continuing education) or over misrepresentation.
Cases over supervision of unlicensed personnel, if psychologists fail to follow the supervision rules.
Summary
Chapter 100 of the SC regulations sets out licensing requirements, ethics, supervision, continuing education, advertising, and other professional standards for psychologists in South Carolina. Key components include accredited doctoral training, supervised experience, examinations, ethics, accurate representation, continued professional competence, and supervision of unlicensed service providers
The leading case, Hartzell v. State Board of Examiners in Psychology (1980), confirms that the Board may deny an applicant whose academic training does not meet the content requirements, and that the appointment of Board members as structured under statute was constitutional.
These rules operate in conjunction with statutory law; Board decisions are subject to judicial review, but courts generally uphold the Board’s discretion if the rules and statutes are followed, and due process is respected.
RELATED Blog
0 comments