When may the State Board defer disciplinary actions against an impaired psychologist?

The correct context for the State Board's discretion in deferring disciplinary actions against an impaired psychologist lies primarily in the interest of public protection and the promotion of rehabilitation rather than punishment. An individual who self-reports to the Board shows recognition of their impairment and a willingness to seek help, which is relevant in many regulatory frameworks, including psychology. This self-reporting can trigger a process wherein the Board may allow the individual to engage in treatment and rehabilitation rather than facing immediate disciplinary measures.

In contrast, a conviction related to controlled substances could be considered a serious matter that raises concerns about the professional conduct and safety of patients. This is why simply having such a conviction would not lead to deferral of disciplinary action; instead, it would likely necessitate an investigation and potential sanctions, reflecting the Board's commitment to ensure public safety. Thus, the deferral is reliant more on actions taken by the psychologist in recognizing their impairment and proactively addressing it, rather than issues that indicate a failure to uphold professional standards or legality.