Oklahoma Administrative CodeTitle 690 - Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
Oklahoma Administrative Code Title 690
Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
Overview
The Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology regulates the licensing, certification, and conduct of speech-language pathologists and audiologists in Oklahoma. Title 690 sets out the rules governing licensure requirements, renewal, disciplinary procedures, and professional standards.
Key Functions and Powers of the Board
Licensing and Certification: Establishes qualifications and issues licenses to practitioners.
Renewal and Continuing Education: Requires periodic renewal and continuing education to maintain licensure.
Investigations and Discipline: Investigates complaints of professional misconduct or incompetence.
Administrative Hearings: Conducts hearings for license suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary actions.
Rulemaking: Adopts rules to regulate practice standards and ensure public safety.
Relevant Legal and Constitutional Principles
Since the Board is an administrative agency, its actions are subject to constitutional and administrative law doctrines ensuring fairness, authority limits, and due process.
1. Delegated Authority and Scope of Power
The Board operates under authority delegated by the state legislature, within the bounds set by the Oklahoma Administrative Code Title 690.
Its power is limited to regulation of speech-language pathology and audiology professions.
Courts review whether the Board acts within this delegated authority.
Case Law Principle:
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984): Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of the scope of their regulatory authority.
2. Due Process Protections in Licensing and Discipline
Due process requires that any practitioner facing license denial, suspension, or revocation must receive:
Notice of charges or allegations.
An opportunity for a hearing to contest the charges.
An impartial adjudicator.
A reasoned decision based on the evidence presented.
Case Law:
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970): Fair hearing required prior to deprivation of significant interests like professional licenses.
Mathews v. Eldridge (1976): Established a balancing test to determine procedural requirements, weighing individual and governmental interests.
3. Judicial Review of Board Decisions
Courts review Board actions for:
Compliance with statutory and regulatory authority.
Presence of substantial evidence supporting findings.
Avoidance of arbitrary or capricious decision-making.
Case Law:
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. (1983): Ensures agency decisions are not arbitrary and are supported by reasoned explanation.
4. Professional Regulation and Public Safety
The Board’s regulation aims to protect public health and safety by ensuring competent practice.
The Board must balance professional autonomy with the public interest.
Case Law:
Dent v. West Virginia (1889): Upheld state licensing laws as valid exercises of the police power to protect public health and safety.
Marbury v. Madison (1803): Affirms judicial authority to ensure agencies act within constitutional limits.
Application to Oklahoma Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
The Board must follow due process when issuing or revoking licenses.
Disciplinary proceedings must provide fair notice and opportunity to respond.
If a licensee challenges a Board decision, courts will check whether the Board acted lawfully, followed procedures, and based decisions on substantial evidence.
The Board’s rules under Title 690 guide professional standards and procedural safeguards consistent with constitutional protections.
Summary
The Oklahoma Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology regulates licensure and discipline under Title 690.
Its authority is delegated and limited by administrative regulations.
Due process safeguards protect licensees in disciplinary and licensing matters.
Courts defer to reasonable Board interpretations but require decisions be lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.
Foundational cases like Chevron, Goldberg, Mathews, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, and Dent underpin how the Board’s authority and procedures are reviewed.
RELATED Blog
0 comments