Case library / Discipline that arrives from somewhere else
The psychology board acted, and the MFT license followed
In short
Revocation stayed. Two years of probation
$3,000§4982.25(a): another board's discipline is itself unprofessional conduct here.
Dual-licensed clinicians consistently underestimate §4982.25, and it is not a re-hearing.
What happened
The California Board of Psychology disciplined the licensee's psychologist license in January 2024.
BBS then filed its own accusation against the MFT license, on the basis of that discipline — plus a separate count for the underlying violations.
What it was charged as
Discipline by another state, territory or governmental agency on a healing-arts license is unprofessional conduct. A certified copy of the other decision is conclusive evidence.
The underlying conduct, charged again independently.
The outcome
Revocation stayed. Two years of probation.
$3,000ordered in cost recovery under B&P §125.3What the rule actually says
§4982.25 is the subdivision dual-licensed clinicians underestimate. It is not a re-hearing. The certified copy of the other board's decision is conclusive evidence of the facts found, so the only issue left in the California case is the penalty. Subdivision (b) does the same thing for discipline by BBS on another BBS license you hold.
Discussion
Analysis, not part of the decision
The Board of Psychology disciplined the psychologist license; BBS then filed its own accusation against the marriage and family therapist license on the basis of that discipline, plus a separate count for the underlying violations. Two boards, one course of conduct, two disciplinary records.
The mechanism matters. Section 4982.25 is not an opportunity to relitigate. A certified copy of the other board's decision is conclusive evidence of the facts found, so the only live issue in the California proceeding is the penalty. A clinician who plans to fight on the facts has one chance to do it, in whichever forum acts first, and does not get a second.
Subdivision (b) does the same thing for discipline by BBS itself on another BBS license you hold — which is how holding an MFT license and an LPCC registration turns one incident into two proceedings.
Where insurance reaches, and where it does not
Board-defense sublimits are generally written per proceeding or per policy year. Two boards means two proceedings, and one of them may sit in a different policy year, which is either a second sublimit or a second retention depending on how the policy is worded. Read that clause if you hold more than one license.
What would have changed it
- If any board anywhere opens a matter against you, tell your California licensing attorney immediately — the facts you settle in the first proceeding become conclusive in the second.
- The same applies to a settlement you might otherwise accept because it looks cheap. A stipulation in another state is not a private arrangement; it is evidence here.
Questions
For a law and ethics seminar, or for yourself
- You hold licenses from two boards and one of them opens an investigation. How does §4982.25 change your strategy in that first proceeding?
- Why would the legislature make another board's findings conclusive rather than merely admissible?
- What is left to argue in the second proceeding?
Source. This write-up is drawn from the signed public decision in the case number above. Names, cities and employers have been removed — why. To pull the original, open the Board's quarterly newsletter archive, find the issue covering September 25, 2025, and match the case number in the Formal Disciplinary Actions section. Not legal advice.
