Opinion ID: 2092596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Board's Interpretation of Principle 1.17(c) is Sound

Text: [¶ 31] Seider argues that the Board's finding that she violated Principle 1.17(c) [15] was erroneous because the record does not contain evidence of multiple relationships within the meaning of Principle 1.17(c). Seider contends that Principle 1.17(c) does not address situations where psychologists have professional relationships with `multiple' persons who happen to be related in some way. Rather, she argues that the provision addresses situations where a psychologist simultaneously has (1) a therapeutic or consultive relationship with a patient or client, and (2) a collateral relationship`personal, scientific, professional [or] financial,' among otherswith the same person. [¶ 32] Seider's interpretation of the regulation is overly restrictive. The Board found that Seider violated Principle 1.17(c) because of her multiple conflicting relationships with the mother, the son, the daughter, and the father. We give considerable deference to an agency's interpretation of its own internal rules, regulations, and procedures and will not set it aside, unless the rule or regulation plainly compels a contrary result. Downeast Energy Corp. v. Fund Ins. Review Bd., 2000 ME 151, ¶ 13, 756 A.2d 948, 951. The Board's interpretation of Principle 1.17(c) is sound.