< back

New York State Supreme Court Determines the Scope of Practice of Social Workers and Psychologists to be Equal

People v. R.R   
People v. G.A.

2005 NY Slip Op. 25561
(Sup. Ct. NY County, 2005).

Recently, the Supreme Court, (New York County) rendered a single decision in the above-referenced matters. The Defendants in both cases received Court-ordered evaluations by a psychologist and clinical social worker.  Subsequent to these evaluations, the Court became aware of the new licensing provisions of Article 153 and 154 of the Education Law defining the scope of practice for psychologists and social workers.

The Court was faced with the issue of whether the “evaluation, making and rendering of diagnoses and prognoses, formulating treatment plans and the treatment of mental disorders…[either] organic in nature or which may result to some degree from a concurrent physical ailment or dysfunction” was within the newly established scope of practice.       

First, the Court held that the scope of practice of licensed social workers did not vary in substance and was “wholly equal and the same” as the scope of practice for licensed psychologists.   

Second, the Court found that such diagnostic activities if conducted by an appropriately licensed and trained Clinical Social Worker were within the established scope of practice.  Since 1983, Courts have held that certified social workers with appropriate training and clinical experience can make diagnostic assessments of an individual’s mental condition, and provide expert testimony concerning the diagnosis of mental disorders.  People v. Gans, 119 Misc. 2d 843 (Sup. Ct. NY County 1983). 

The Court in the instant matter reinforced previously established standards of care requiring Social Workers to take a biopsychosocial approach, by utilizing a combination of biological, psychological and social elements to treat an individual.  The Court held that this approach social workers were “legally authorized to apply in their provision of professional clinical social work services.” 

As such, the Court rejected the proposition that Social Workers and Psychologists may only consider the presence of physical or biological conditions once such a condition has been properly diagnosed by a physician.