IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph Abraham, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Bureau of Professional :

and Occupational Affairs, :

State Board of Psychology, : No. 64 C.D. 2014

Respondent : Submitted: May 16, 2014

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED: August 11, 2014

Joseph Abraham (Petitioner), appearing pro se, petitions for review 

from an order of the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board 

of Psychology (Board) that imposed civil penalties against him and ordered 

Petitioner to cease and desist from holding himself out as a psychologist in the 

Commonwealth until he obtains a license from the Board. 

On November 17, 2011, the Department of State (Department) issued 

an order to show cause and alleged the following:

1. Respondent [Petitioner] does not now, nor has he ever 

held a license to practice psychology in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

. . . .

Count One

4. In or around November 2010, Respondent [Petitioner] 

maintained a website with the address of www.drjoseph.com.
2

5. On this website, Respondent [Petitioner] refers to 

himself as ‘Dr. Joseph Abraham, Online PsychologistExpert on Human Behavior.’

6. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] business address as stated 

on the website is 204 W. Main Street, Mechanicsburg, 

PA 17055.

. . . .

9. As part of an investigation, on or about February 28, 

2011, an investigator with the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, Department of State, Bureau of 

Enforcement and Investigation (BEI) contacted 

Respondent [Petitioner] via e-mail regarding 

Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] services.

10. On or about February 28, 2011, Respondent 

[Petitioner] replied to the investigator’s e-mail, wherein 

Respondent [Petitioner] directed the investigator to 

Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] website and stated he does 

not provide ‘traditional psychological services.’

11. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] reply also stated that he 

provides ‘Relationship Advice.’

. . . .

13. On or about June 6, 2011, a BEI investigator sent 

Respondent [Petitioner] an e-mail inquiring, among other 

matters, what software is used for the counseling sessions 

and if it is secure.

14. In his e-mail response, Respondent [Petitioner] stated 

that he uses the phone and Skype for counseling sessions.

. . . .

16. Based upon the foregoing Factual Allegations, the 

Board is authorized to impose a civil penalty . . . .

. . . . 

Count Two

18. Based upon the foregoing Factual Allegations, the 

Board is authorized to impose a civil penalty . . . and/or 

impose the costs of investigation . . . because Respondent 

[Petitioner] . . . [held] himself out to the public by any 
3

title or description of services incorporating the words 

‘psychological,’ ‘psychologist,’ or ‘psychology’ without 

first having obtained a license pursuant to the 

[“Professional Psychologists Practice Act] Act.[1]

Order to Show Cause, November 17, 2011, Paragraphs 1, 4-6, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 

18 at 1-3; Certified Record (C.R.) at No. 1. 

Petitioner responded:

2. Answer to the Order to Show Cause[:]

a. Regarding the Factual Allegations[:]

a.1 . . .: Lack of Relevancy: This item presents a correct 

but an irrelevant statement. I (the Respondent) 

[Petitioner] do not practice Psychology in PA and 

therefore do not need a PA license and [do] not have one.

a.2 . . . The location at 204 W Main Street., 

Mechanicsburg PA is a dining room of a B&B business I 

rent hourly; the last time I did so was about two years 

ago for two hours . . . .

b. Regarding Count One[:]

b.1. . . . The website www.dr-joseph.com describes my 

services and my professional background but is owned 

by an Israeli marketing firm . . . I have no legal 

responsibility or liability for whatever is published . . . . 

(emphasis added).

b.2.1. . . . The Board has not satisfied the jurisdictional 

requirements and therefore any claim on anything that is 

published on the website www.dr-joseph.com is 

inadmissible. (emphasis added).

 

1 Act of March 23, 1972, P.L. 136, as amended, 63 P.S §§ 1201-1218.
4

b.2.2. . . . I (the Respondent [Petitioner] have dual 

citizenship (US/Israel), dual residency (PA/Israel) and 

possess an Israeli license to practice Psychology . . . . 

The website is available globally as a platform to present 

my services; it is not a PA entity . . . . (emphasis added).

. . . .

Regarding Count Two

c.1 . . . The term ‘Online Psychologist lawfully appeared 

and may appear again on www.dr-joseph.com which is 

an internet entity ‘located’ on the Web (which is not PA 

territory), available globally and is not specifically 

directed toward PA residents. The ‘Disclaimer’ indicates 

that my (the Respondent) [Petitioner] practice of 

Psychology is not available in the US and Canada . . . . 

(emphasis added).

Answer to the Order to Show Cause, December 12, 2011, Paragraph 2 at 1, 3, 5, 

and 7.

On February 22, 2012, the Board held a hearing at which time Larry 

Berrier (Berrier), investigator supervisor, for the BEI, and Bret Rickert (Rickert), a 

professional conduct investigator I for the BEI, testified on behalf of the 

Department.

Berrier testified that a complaint was filed and “[t]he origin of the 

complaint was an allegation as it relate[d] to the Respondent, Joseph Abraham 

[Petitioner], [and] related to unlicensed practice activity in psychology.” Hearing 

Transcript (H.T.), February 22, 2012, at 18. Berrier stated that he investigated 

Petitioner’s website at www.dr-joseph.com and found:

Very affordable and very effective online relationship 

advice, I’m Dr. Joseph Abraham [Petitioner], online 
5

psychologist, expert on human behavior. (emphasis 

added).

. . . .

Online relationship advice counseling: How do I do it[?] 

Using a telephone for important confidential matters, 

either talking person to person or the conference call 

system, both are very common. Webcam . . . the hightech Internet video conferencing, takes us one step closer 

by allowing us to meet and see each other while 

communicating . . . . 

. . . .

Online counseling, therefore, can be similar to the 

traditional process, engage in ongoing conversations in 

which you, the client, and I, your on line counselor, life 

coach or advice provider . . . allows one to handle a 

variety of behavioral themes, overcome stress-related 

issues or fear of failure dealing with goal setting and 

receiving career coaching tips, succeed resolving family 

conflict and parenting dilemmas. (emphasis added).

H.T. at 22 and 24. Berrier stated that the website included a work shop named 

“Center for Human Growth and Business Insights” and was located at “204 West 

Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.” H.T. at 32. Berrier stated that he did 

access “the Department of State’s license 2000 database . . . [and] conduct[ed] a 

search of the licensure information related to the State Board of Psychology using 

Joseph Abraham [Petitioner] as a search and was unable to determine any licensure 

information relevant to that individual.” H.T. at 38-39. “I also did a search . . . for 

Dr. Joseph Abraham related to the State Board of Social Work, Marriage 

Counselor, Professional Counselor, Therapists and I did notice that in 2005 . . . an 

individual named Joseph Abraham [Petitioner] had made an attempt to obtain 

professional counselor licensure . . . which was still in pending status.” H.T. at 39. 

Berrier concluded that “it [also] did not appear . . . Dr. Abraham was licensed as a 

professional counselor by the Social Work Board.” H.T. at 39. 
6

Rickert testified that he received “a request for supplemental 

investigation in January of 2011 in regards to investigating a Dr. Joseph Abraham 

[Petitioner] for possible unlicensed practice activity in reference to psychology.” 

H.T. at 50. Rickert found that the information concerning Petitioner was the same 

information Berrier found. H.T. at 53. Rickert sent an e-mail to Petitioner and 

requested to schedule an appointment. H.T. at 54. Rickert stated that Petitioner 

responded to his inquiry and stated “I have developed, more efficient and less 

expensive than the traditional psychologist way of approaching relationship issues . 

. . [m]ost rearrangement difficulties or life-changing situations are handled within 4 

to 10 sessions . . . [and] [f]ees are $55 to $75 as outlined in my homepage around 

the middle of the page.” (emphasis added). H.T. at 55. Rickert received “another 

supplemental investigation request in April of 2011 in regards to a Dr. Abraham 

possibly practicing unlicensed psychology in Pennsylvania.” H.T. at 56. Rickert 

decided to send another e-mail this time posing as an individual named Jim 

Lindenburger. H.T. at 58. Rickert stated that Petitioner responded and said 

“[f]our to six sessions usually are sufficient in unhappy attitude cases . . . I use the 

phone and Skype for webcam . . . [s]ee my fees at the site, $55 to $85 near PayPal 

button, the payment method, regards, Dr. Joe.” (emphasis added). H.T. at 59. 

Rickert contacted the Mechanicsburg Chamber of Commerce to check out whether 

Petitioner listed his business address. Petitioner’s address was listed as “Center for 

Human Growth and Business Insights, 204 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, PA 

17055 . . . (717) 458-5435 . . . [c]ontact person, Dr. Joseph Abraham, www.drjoseph.com. H.T. at 61. 

Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing to present any evidence 

contradicting the Department’s charges: Attorney Kenneth Suter, for the 

Commonwealth, “I . . . at 9:40 . . . called Dr. Abraham at the phone number listed 
7

in Exhibit A, which was (717) 943-0959, I reached Dr. Abraham who identified . . 

. himself [as Dr. Joseph Abraham] and indicated that he would not be attending 

today’s hearing.” H.T. at 7. 

The Board made the following pertinent findings of fact:

1. Respondent [Petitioner] does not nor has he ever held a 

license to practice psychology in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania . . . .

2. Respondent [Petitioner] used the Center For Human 

Growth And Business Insights, 204 West Main Street, 

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 as an address for his business 

in Pennsylvania . . . .

3. In or around November 2010, Respondent [Petitioner] 

maintained a website with the web address of www.drjoseph.com . . . .

4. On this website, Respondent [Petitioner] refers to 

himself as ‘Dr. Joseph Abraham, Online PsychologistExpert on Human Behavior’ . . . . 

. . . .

6. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] website includes a link for 

driving directions to 204 West Main Street, 

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 . . . . 

. . . .

8. The ‘717’ area code is assigned to central 

Pennsylvania . . . .

9. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] website invites readers to 

‘[g]et your personal Online Counselor or Life Coach by 

phone or video chat’ . . . .

10. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] website identifies fees 

‘for phone or web-cam sessions’ . . . .
8

11. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] website directs readers to 

call ‘717-943-0959’ to schedule a session . . . .

12. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] website also allows 

individuals to purchase his services directly from the 

website . . . .

. . . .

15. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] ‘Relationship Advice’

webpage states that ‘Since 1978 I’ve practiced in Israel 

as a personal and family Psychologist and Marriage 

Counsel, since 90’ [sic] also as international Online 

Psychologist and Counselor as well as an Online 

Relationship Advice Provider’ . . . . 

16. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] ‘Relationship Advice’

webpage states ‘I provide Psychological only in countries 

that have reciprocity licensure agreement with Israel 

(most European and Asian and a few Middle East 

countries. USA and Canada are not included)[’] . . . . 

(emphasis added).

17. Respondent [Petitioner] included the title ‘Online 

Psychologist’ on his website through August/September 

2010 . . . . (emphasis added).

18. At Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] direction the title 

‘Online Psychologist’ was removed from Respondent’s 

[Petitioner’s] website . . . . (emphasis added).

19. As part of an investigation, on or about February 28, 

2011, an investigator with the . . . (BEI) contacted 

Respondent [Petitioner] via e-mail regarding 

Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] services . . . .

20. In the February 28, 2011 e-mail, the BEI investigator 

stated that he was ‘searching for a Psychologist in my 

area. I am from the Carlisle area and see that you are in 

Mechanicsburg, PA’ . . . . 
9

21. On or about February 28, 2011, Respondent 

[Petitioner] replied to the investigator’s e-mail, wherein 

Respondent [Petitioner] directed the investigator to 

Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] website and stated he does 

not provide ‘traditional psychological services’ . . . .

22. Respondent’s [Petitioner’s] reply also stated that he 

provides ‘Relationship Advice’ . . . .

23. On or about June 6, 2011, a BEI investigator sent 

Respondent [Petitioner] an e-mail inquiring, among 

other matters, what software is used for the counseling 

sessions and if it is secure . . . .

24. In the June 6, 2011 e-mail, the BEI investigator also 

stated that the Respondent [Petitioner] seems to be a 

‘very qualified Psychologist’ . . . .

25. In his e-mail response, Respondent [Petitioner] stated 

that he uses the phone and Skype for counseling sessions 

. . . .

27. Respondent [Petitioner] received the Amended Order 

to Show Cause and filed an Answer thereto and elected 

not to attend the formal hearing . . . .

28. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania expended 

$890.32 to investigate this case . . . .

Final Adjudication and Order of the Board, December 17, 2013, Findings of Fact 

(F.F.) Nos. 1-6, 8-12, 15-25, and 27-28 at 2-4.

The Board determined:

Here, the Respondent [Petitioner] was offering 

psychological services to the public without being 

properly licensed. Because Respondent [Petitioner] is 

not in compliance with the requirements that the Board 

has instituted through its regulations to insure that 

psychological services are current and conform to its 
10

code of ethics, members of the public could be harmed 

by his activities. Additionally, Respondent [Petitioner] 

has failed to present any evidence of mitigation or show 

any remorse for his actions. (Emphasis added).

Board’s Adjudication, Sanctions at 9. The Board imposed a $4,000.00 civil 

penalty and further ordered Petitioner to pay $890.32, the cost incurred by the 

Department, to conduct its investigation of the matter.

Essentially, the issues, as framed by the Department in its 

Counterstatement of the Questions Involved, are whether the Board had 

jurisdiction over the present matter and whether the Board’s findings are supported 

by substantial evidence.2

 

2

Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a) (Statement of Questions Involved) provides that “[t]he statement 

of questions involved must state concisely the issues to be resolved, expressed in the terms and 

circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail . . . [e]ach question shall be followed by 

an answer stating simply whether the . . . government unit agreed, disagreed, did not answer, or 

did not address the question . . . .” (emphasis added). Petitioner failed to comply with Pa. 

R.A.P. 2116(a). “Petitioner’s statement of questions involved does not concisely state the issues 

to be resolved and does not state how the Board addressed the questions . . . [t]his section 

contains unnecessary details, is 27 pages long and includes arguments and citations to evidence 

that were not presented to the Board. (emphasis added). Brief of Respondent at 9. 

Pa. R.A.P. 2117(a)(1)(4)(b) (Statement of the Case) provides that “[t]he statement of the 

case shall contain . . . a statement of the form of action, followed by a brief procedural history of 

the case . . . [a] closely condensed chronological statement, in narrative form, of all the facts 

which are necessary to be known . . . all argument to be excluded.” Again, Petitioner failed to 

comply with Pa. R.A.P. 2117. “Here, Petitioner’s statement of the case does not provide a 

procedural history of the case or a chronological statement of the facts . . . [i]t leaves the reader 

guessing as to what actions occurred before the Board and what evidence the Board actually 

received.” Brief of Respondent at 9-10. “The section does, however, contain numerous points 

of argument which is expressly prohibited by subsection (b).” Brief of Respondent at 10. 

Pa. R.A.P. 2119 (Argument) provides that “[t]he argument shall be divided into as many 

parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part –in distinctive 

type . . . the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of 

authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Petitioner failed to comply with Pa. R.A.P. 2119. 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
11

I. Whether The Board Had Jurisdiction To Adjudicate The Present Matter.

Section 1 of the Act, 63 P.S. § 1201, provides:

The practice of psychology in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania is hereby declared to affect the public 

safety and welfare, and to be subject to regulation and 

control in the public interest to protect the public from 

unprofessional, improper, unauthorized and unqualified 

practice of psychology, and from unprofessional conduct 

by persons licensed to practice psychology. This act 

should be liberally construed to carry out these objects 

and purposes. (emphasis added). 

Initially, Petitioner contends3that the Board lacked jurisdiction over 

his activities because he was only providing information on his website. 

Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the website www.dr-joseph.com is owned by an 

Israeli marketing firm and as a result it is fully and solely liable for the content. 

 

(continued...)

“Petitioner’s argument section consists of one page and does not contain any of the sections 

listed in his statement of questions involved.” Brief of Respondent at 11. “The arguments 

presented consist of general personal statements without any citations to the record or legal 

precedent in support [and] . . . the section does not set forth any alleged errors that were 

committed by the Board.” Brief of Respondent at 11. 

The Department requests this Court to dismiss Petitioner’s appeal based on his failure to 

comply with “the minimal requirements for writing an appellate brief . . . [which] precludes the 

court from conducting a meaningful review of the matters.” Means v. Housing Authority of City 

of Pittsburgh, 747 A.2d 1286, 1287-89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000); Kochan v. Department of 

Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 768 A.2d 1186, 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

Although the defects in Petitioner’s brief are substantial, this Court will not dismiss 

Petitioner’s appeal but will render meaningful appellate review based upon the Department’s 

counter statement of the questions involved. 

3

This Court’s review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were 

violated, whether the decision is in accordance with the law and whether necessary findings of 

fact are supported by substantial evidence. Singer v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational 

Affairs State, Board of Psychology, 633 A.2d 246, 247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). 
12

Petitioner states that although he is part owner of this foreign company he is not an 

active manager.

A review of the evidence indicates otherwise. First, Petitioner’s 

business address stated on the website was 204 West Main Street, Mechanicsburg, 

PA 17055. H.T. at 9. Petitioner’s website also displayed a link for driving 

directions to the above-mentioned address. H.T. at 26. 

Second, Petitioner’s website listed a telephone number with the area 

code “717” which is assigned to Central Pennsylvania. H.T. at 23. Further, 

Petitioner’s website encouraged viewers to “Online Counseling [where we] engage 

in ongoing conversations in which you, the client, and I, your online counselor, life 

coach or advisor provider, are in separate locations, but still together.” H.T. at 24. 

Finally, Petitioner’s website identified his fees “for phone or webcam sessions” 

with instructions to call “717-943-0959” for an appointment. H.T. at 20 and 23; 

Exhibit C-6. 

Third, the record clearly established that Petitioner was a resident of 

Pennsylvania and his counseling business was situated in Pennsylvania. In fact, 

Petitioner admitted that he was a resident of Pennsylvania. C.R. at 2. Here, 

Petitioner did not operate a “passive” website but was conducting business through 

his website to actively solicit Pennsylvania residents to sign up for his services as a 

psychologist, an online counselor, or a life coach. See Zippo Manufacturing 

Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997). 

Pursuant to Section 1 of the Act, 63 P.S. § 1201, our Pennsylvania 

Legislature empowered the Board to regulate the practice of psychology and to 
13

protect the residents of Pennsylvania from unqualified and unlicensed individuals 

from practicing such profession. The Board properly exercised jurisdiction over 

Petitioner.

4

II. Whether The Board’s Findings Of Fact Are Supported By Substantial 

Evidence.

Petitioner next argues that the Board’s findings were erroneous and 

not supported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Valley View 

Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637, 640 (Pa. 1983). 

“Moreover, an administrative agency has broad discretion in the performance of its 

administrative duties and functions, and this Court cannot overturn an agency’s 

exercise of its discretion absent fraud, bad faith, or blatant abuse of discretion.” 

American Auto Wash, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 729 A.2d 

175, 178 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). “When we review an administrative order, the 

prevailing party is entitled to the benefit of every inference which can be logically 

drawn from the evidence when viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing 

party.” Herzog v. Department of Environmental Resources, 645 A.2d 1381, 1387 

 

4 As the Department noted, Petitioner’s reliance on Zippo was misplaced:

Petitioner argues that the Board did not have jurisdiction over his 

activities stemming from his website because it was only providing 

information and cited Zippo . . . for this proposition. Petitioner’s 

reliance on Zippo is misplaced. Zippo deals with the issue of 

personal jurisdiction over nonresidents in a federal lawsuit. Thus, 

this case is not applicable to the instant facts.

Brief of Respondent at 19. 
14

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), quoting Doerr v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 491 

A.2d 299, 302 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

Section 2 of the Act, 63 P.S. § 1202, provides:

‘Practice of psychology’ means offering to render or 

rendering to individuals . . . or the public for 

remuneration any service involving the following:

(i) The application of established principles of learning, 

motivation, perception, thinking, and emotional 

relationship to problems of personality, evaluation, group 

relations, and behavior adjustment. The application of 

said principles includes, but is not restricted to, 

counseling and the use of psychological methods with 

persons . . . with adjustment problems in the areas of 

work, family, school, and personal relationships . . . and 

offering services as a psychological consultant. 

(emphasis added).

(ii)(a) ‘Measuring and testing,’ consisting of the 

psychological assessment and evaluation of abilities, 

attitudes, achievements, adjustments, motives, 

personality dynamic and/or other psychological attributes 

of individuals by means of standardized measurements 

or other methods, techniques or procedures recognized 

by the science and profession of psychology, (b) 

‘psychological methods,’ consisting of the application of 

principles of learning and motivation in an interpersonal 

situation . . . , (c) ‘psychological consulting,’ . . . 

rendering expert psychological opinion, psychological 

evaluation, or engaging in applied psychological search. 

(emphasis added).

Section 3 of the Act, 63 P.S. § 1203 (Necessity for license), provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the 

practice of psychology or to offer or attempt to hold 

himself out to the public by any title or description of 

services incorporating the words ‘psychological,’
15

‘psychologist,’ or ‘psychology’ unless he shall first have 

obtained a license pursuant to this act . . . . (emphasis 

added). 

In the present controversy, the Department filed an order to show 

cause and charged Petitioner with the unlicensed practice of psychology as well as 

holding himself out to the public by title or description of services incorporating 

the words “psychological”, “psychologist”, or “psychology” without first acquiring 

a license in violation of Section 3 of the Act. Order to Show Cause, Count One 

and Count Two at 2-3; C.R. at 1. Petitioner admitted that although he was licensed 

in Israel he was not licensed in Pennsylvania as a psychologist. Further, the 

Department presented evidence that Petitioner operated a counseling service in the

Commonwealth with a website at www.dr-joseph.com. C.R. 1; Exhibit B and C; 

H.T. at 10. Petitioner also identified himself as Dr. Joseph Abraham during the 

course of the Department’s investigation. H.T. at 10-11.

Here, the Board found that Petitioner’s services and the description of 

his services offered for a fee on his website constituted the practice of psychology 

as defined in the Act. “It is logical to presume that professionals sitting on an 

administrative board charged with regulating a profession will draw upon their 

special expertise in the determinations they are called upon to make.” Markis v. 

Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board of Psychology, 599 

A.2d 279, 282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). There was substantial evidence to support the 

Board’s determination that Petitioner violated Section 3 of the Act, 63 P.S. § 

1203.5

 

5 Based on the record, the Board properly imposed a civil penalty on Petitioner for the 

unlawful practice of psychology pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Act, 63 P.S. § 1211(b) and 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
16

Accordingly, this Court affirms. 

 

____________________________

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

 

 

(continued...)

Section 5(b)(4) of an Act Empowering the General Counsel or his Designee to Issue Subpoenas 

for Hearing Examiners in the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs; Providing 

Additional Powers to the Commissioner of Professional and Occupational Affairs; and further 

Providing for Civil Penalties and License Suspension, Act of July 2, 1993, P.L. 345, as amended, 

63 P.S. § 2205(b)(4).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph Abraham, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Bureau of Professional :

and Occupational Affairs, :

State Board of Psychology, : No. 64 C.D. 2014

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2014, the order of the Bureau of 

Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board of Psychology in the abovecaptioned matter is affirmed. 

____________________________

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge