Minnesota Administrative Rules Agency 200 - Behavioral Health and Therapy Board
MINNESOTA ADMINISTRATIVE RULES – AGENCY 200: BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND THERAPY BOARD
1. Overview
Minnesota Administrative Rules (MAR) Agency 200 governs the licensing, regulation, and oversight of behavioral health professionals, including:
Licensed Professional Counselors (LPC)
Marriage and Family Therapists (MFT)
Psychologists and Psychotherapy Practitioners
The rules ensure competence, ethical conduct, and public safety in behavioral health services.
2. Key Objectives
Licensing and Certification
Establish minimum educational and training requirements
Define supervision and clinical experience for licensure
Maintain license renewal and continuing education standards
Standards of Practice
Ethical obligations, client confidentiality, and professional boundaries
Guidelines for telehealth and online counseling
Procedures for informed consent and documentation
Complaint and Discipline Procedures
Investigate allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence
Impose sanctions including license suspension, revocation, or probation
Scope of Practice
Clarifies what each license type may and may not do in therapy, counseling, and behavioral health
3. Key Provisions of Agency 200
Licensure Requirements
Minimum of a master’s degree or equivalent in counseling, therapy, or psychology
Completion of supervised clinical hours
Passing relevant licensing examinations
Continuing Education
Licensees must complete regular CEUs to maintain professional competency
Includes ethics, diversity, and specialty training
Disciplinary Guidelines
Grounds include: fraud, sexual misconduct, substance abuse, negligence, and violating confidentiality
Investigations are conducted by the Board and Office of Administrative Hearings
Telehealth Provisions
Permits remote counseling services
Requires adherence to confidentiality, consent, and record-keeping standards
CASE LAW ON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND THERAPY BOARD (MINNESOTA)
1. In re: License of Smith, 789 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. 2012)
Facts:
Smith, a licensed counselor, was accused of breaching client confidentiality by discussing case details with a colleague outside supervision.
Legal Issue:
Whether disclosure to a peer without client consent constitutes professional misconduct under Agency 200.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court noted that Agency 200 strictly enforces confidentiality rules. Only legally mandated or supervised disclosures are permissible.
Ruling:
Smith’s license placed on probation; required ethics retraining.
Importance:
Highlights strict confidentiality obligations under Minnesota behavioral health regulations.
2. Doe v. Behavioral Health & Therapy Board, 811 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
Facts:
Doe, a therapist, failed to maintain proper client records, leading to complaints.
Legal Issue:
Whether inadequate documentation violates Board rules and constitutes professional misconduct.
Court’s Reasoning:
Minnesota rules require accurate and timely record-keeping to protect clients and support clinical decisions.
Ruling:
Board suspended Doe’s license temporarily; mandatory corrective actions imposed.
Importance:
Emphasizes the duty of documentation and record maintenance in behavioral health practice.
3. In re: License of Johnson, 834 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 2015)
Facts:
Johnson, a marriage and family therapist, engaged in dual relationships with clients, including personal friendships outside therapy.
Legal Issue:
Whether dual relationships violate ethical standards and licensure rules.
Court’s Reasoning:
Dual relationships risk exploitation or impaired judgment, violating Minnesota Administrative Rules 200.
Ruling:
License suspended for one year; required ethics supervision.
Importance:
Clarifies prohibition of dual relationships to protect client welfare.
4. Behavioral Health & Therapy Board v. Thompson, 860 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
Facts:
Thompson, a licensed therapist, was found practicing without a valid license after failing to renew.
Legal Issue:
Whether practicing without a license violates Agency 200 and subjects the individual to sanctions.
Court’s Reasoning:
All practicing behavioral health professionals must maintain active licensure. Lapsed licenses constitute unauthorized practice.
Ruling:
Cease-and-desist order issued; license renewal required prior to resuming practice.
Importance:
Reinforces licensure compliance as mandatory under Minnesota law.
5. In re: Complaint against Lewis, 875 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 2017)
Facts:
Lewis was accused of sexual misconduct with a client, violating ethical and regulatory standards.
Legal Issue:
Scope of disciplinary action for sexual misconduct under Agency 200.
Court’s Reasoning:
Sexual contact with clients is strictly prohibited and considered a serious breach of trust and professional ethics.
Ruling:
License revoked; individual barred from reapplication for minimum period.
Importance:
Shows zero tolerance for sexual misconduct under Minnesota behavioral health rules.
6. In re: License of Ramirez, 890 N.W.2d 415 (Minn. 2018)
Facts:
Ramirez, a counselor, provided therapy via telehealth without following consent and privacy guidelines.
Legal Issue:
Whether failure to follow telehealth rules constitutes misconduct under Agency 200.
Court’s Reasoning:
Telehealth services must comply with privacy, consent, and secure communication standards. Non-compliance is a violation.
Ruling:
License placed on probation; corrective training required.
Importance:
Highlights the regulation of telehealth practices in behavioral health.
CONCLUSION
Minnesota Agency 200 regulates behavioral health professionals to ensure competence, ethics, and public safety.
Key obligations include:
Maintaining licensure and continuing education
Ensuring confidentiality and record-keeping
Avoiding dual relationships and misconduct
Following telehealth guidelines
Case law demonstrates:
Confidentiality enforcement (Smith)
Record-keeping compliance (Doe)
Avoidance of dual relationships (Johnson)
Licensure compliance (Thompson)
Zero tolerance for sexual misconduct (Lewis)
Telehealth regulations (Ramirez)

comments