Court Opinion

ID: 9580224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:03:17.482314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:08.974373
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the opinion of the Court. I write separately to note that the North Dakota State Board of Psychologist Examiners apparently applied a code of ethics never legally adopted for use in North Dakota. The Board apparently used the most recent code issued by the American Psychological Association. That version has not been adopted for regulatory use in this state.
N.D.C.C. § 43-32-27(7) has not been amended since its enactment in 1967. The relevant portion of that statute provides the Board may discipline licensed psychologists who engage “in any form of unethical conduct as defined in ‘Ethical Standards for Psychologists’ as adopted and published by the American psychological association, 1953, and as revised.” The Board adopted a corresponding administrative rule sometime prior to July 1, 1978, the date the North Dakota Administrative Code came into existence. See N.D.C.C. § 43-32-08. That rule is presently found at NDAC § 66-02-01-07.
The American Psychological Association (APA) code of ethics, in addition to the current version, has been revised or amended at least seven times since the enactment of § 43-32-27(7). See Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, American Psychologist, Dec. 1992. The APA has published its Ethical Standards as follows:
“American Psychological Association. (1953). Ethical standards of psychologists, Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association.
(1958). Standards of ethical behavior for psychologists. American Psychologist, 13, 268-271.
American Psychological Association.
(1963). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 18, 56-60.
American Psychological Association.
(1968). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 23, 357-361.
American Psychological Association. (1977, March). Ethical standards of psychologists. APA Monitor, pp. 22-23.
American Psychological Association.
(1979). Ethical standards of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association.
(1981), Ethical principles of psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 633-638.
American Psychological Association.
(1990). Ethical principles of psychologists (Amended June 2, 1989). American Psychologist, 45, 390-395.”
Id. The version of the APA code of ethics which the Board sought to apply to Dr. Wilson is significantly different from the one in effect in 1967, the year the statute was enacted, and the one in effect in 1978, prior to the enactment of the Administrative Code. The Administrative Code does not reflect that the Board has ever adopted any of these more recent versions.
The Board may not use a version of the APA’s code that has never been legally
*731adopted in North Dakota. See State v. Julson, 202 N.W.2d 145, 150-51 (N.D.1972) (citing Schryver v. Schirmer, 84 S.D. 352, 171 N.W.2d 634, 636-37 (1969) (“Statutes adopting laws or regulations of other states, the federal government, or any of its agencies, effective at the time of adoption are valid, but attempted adoption of future laws-, rules or regulations of other states, or of the federal government, or of its commissions and agencies generally have been held unconstitutional as an unlawful delegation of legislative power.”)). See also Comerica Bank-Detroit v. Dept. of Treasury, 194 Mich.App. 77, 486 N.W.2d 338, 346 n. 4 (1992) (“It has been held that an act which adopts by reference the whole or a portion of another statute or code incorporates the standard as it existed at the time of the adoption, and does not include subsequent modifications, amendments, or variations to the adopted statute or code. But, the adoption by reference of future legislation and rales are unconstitutional.” (quoting Michigan Mfrs. Ass’n v. Director, Workers’ Disability Comp. Bureau, 134 Mich.App. 723, 352 N.W.2d 712, 715 (1984)).
The Board may not adopt or use for regulatory purposes a version of the ethical standards, unless the Board complies with N.D.C.C. eh. 28-32 in specifically adopting that version. See Little v. Spaeth, 394 N.W.2d 700, 703 (N.D.1986); Hakanson v. Dept. of Human Services, 479 N.W.2d 809, 813 n. 7 (N.D.1992). .
VANDE WALLE, C.J., concurs.