‘, - 

# TRE~ATTORNEYGENERAIOF TEXAS **AWeTIN.** Tlss4el 787ll JOEN I.. EILL *-- a-Am. August 12, 1974

The Honorable James D. ,Keister Chairman Texas State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners 3010 Brentwood Amarillo, Texas 79106 Opinion No. H- 368 Re: Whether “direct supervision” as used in 0 6of Article 4512e. V.T. C.S., 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 56 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 exemption 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 ofphysical ,therapy. By the express provision of §‘6thereof, the Act does not apply to certain persons, including “an employee performing services under the direct supervision of a physician in ahospital 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. 1720The 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 topersons having qualifications equivalent tothose 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 tom

the 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. Iffor each occasion the responsible physiciarrpersonally trains and instructs the hospital employee inthe 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 ofArticle 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)

APRRqVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 1722