ROBERT L. FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Friedman, an ordained minister providing counseling under church supervision, was charged with practicing psychology without a license. The court reversed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss, holding that the statutory exemption for clergy performing ministerial duties does not require disclosure of exempt status to patients.
The statutory exemption for clergy performing ministerial duties does not require disclosure of exempt status to patients. The trial court erred in denying Friedman's motion to dismiss because he satisfied all requirements of the exemption.
[1] A statute exempting members of the clergy from psychology licensing requirements does not obligate them to disclose their exempt status to patients.
[2] A motion to dismiss an information, if denied, is a dispositive order from which a defendant may appeal after entering a plea.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No person shall be required to be licensed or provisionally licensed under this chapter who: (f) Is a rabbi, priest, minister, or member of the clergy of any religious denomination or sect when engaging in activities which are within the scope of the performance of his or her regular or specialized ministerial duties and for which no separate charge is made, or when such activities are performed, with or without charge, for or under the auspices or sponsorship, individually or in conjunction with others, of an established and legally cognizable church, denomination, or sect, and when the person rendering service remains accountable to the established authority thereof.”
States the statutory exemption from psychology licensing that Friedman invoked
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn undercover attorney general's officer posed as a patient and received counseling from Friedman on several occasions, paying for the services. Fried…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty To Disclose cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was charged with practicing psychology without a license. After his motion to dismiss the information was denied he entered a plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion, which was a dispositive order. Carroll v. State, 761 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
An undercover officer for the attorney general’s office went to appellant’s home, pretending he was a patient in need of counseling, and received counseling for which he paid on several occasions. The state then charged appellant with practicing psychology without a license, and appellant moved to dismiss arguing that he was exempt under section 490.014(2), Florida Statutes (1999), which provides:
No person shall be required to be licensed or provisionally licensed under this chapter who:
(f) Is a rabbi, priest, minister, or member of the clergy of any religious denomination or sect when engaging in activities which are within the scope of the performance of his or her regular or specialized ministerial duties and for which no separate charge is made, or when such activities are performed, with or without charge, for or under the auspices or sponsorship, individually or in conjunction with others, of an established and legally cognizable church, denomination, or sect, and when the person rendering service remains accountable to the established authority thereof.
In support of his motion to dismiss appellant presented affidavits showing that he is an ordained minister with experience in counseling, working with an established church, and is under the supervision of another ordained minister, who knew that appellant was counseling patients. Appellant also furnished an affidavit from his supervising minister, to which documents were attached showing that the church has been recognized by IRS and Florida as a religious institution and that both appellant and his supervisor are ordained ministers.
The state concedes that appellant is a member of the clergy, but argues that he is guilty of practicing psychology without a license, because he did not disclose to his patients that, as a member of the clergy, he was exempt from the licensing requirements.
The state’s position is utterly without merit because the statute does not require appellant to inform a patient of his status. The trial court erred in not dismissing the information. Reversed.
SHAHOOD, J., and DELL, JOHN W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…counseling that might otherwise be characterized as psychological or psychotherapeutic services without being denominated as “psychologists” or “psychotherapists.” Such pastoral counseling is not inconsistent with clerical status. Friedman v. State, 825 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Thus the State’s division of pastoral counseling functions into the “spiritual” and the “psycho-therapeutic” is a false dichotomy. Pastor Nussbaumer was a member of the clergy. Because Mr. Bloom consulted him for spiritual advic…
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. State, 761 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)