I respectfully dissent.
The majority, under the guise of statutory construction, hold that an employer must pay for psychotherapy services provided by an unlicensed psychologist. In essence, the majority add “psychological assistant” to the Labor Code section 3209.3 list of those physicians who are entitled to a lien for services provided.
Linda Chaparro worked as a registered psychological assistant in the office of Doctor Karl Bergenstal. She is not licensed to practice psychology *1281in the State of California. The parties stipulated that Chaparro, in treating Lupe Sanchez, provided all the psychiatric treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) applied Labor Code section 3209.3 and denied the lien claim for Chaparro’s services.
The majority hold that Chaparro’s services are compensable by lien if Doctor Bergenstal supervised the psychotherapy. Not so. Labor Code section 3209.3 requires that Chaparro be a licensed psychologist with a doctorate in psychology and two years’ clinical experience or satisfy certain standards set by the National Register of Health Service Providers.1
In Anugwom v. Zurich-American Ins. Co. (1992) MON 124830, 20 Cal. Workers’ Comp. Rptr. 278, the WCAB denied a similar lien claim for treatment by an unlicensed, registered psychological assistant. The WCAB concluded that Business and Professions Code section 2913 did not authorize payment for services rendered. The same principle controls here. The WCAB denied the lien claim because the employer did not agree to pay for Chaparro’s services. (Lab. Code, §§ 3209.7, 3209.8.)
The majority hold that Business and Professions Code section 2913 overrides Labor Code sections 3209.3, 3209.7, and 3209.8. Not so. Business and Professions Code section 2913, subdivisions (a) and (c) states that a registered psychological assistant may perform “limited psychological functions” if the assistant works under the direct supervision of a licensed psychologist. The licensed psychologist may supervise up to three psychological assistants at any given time. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2913, subd. (d).) While section 2913 authorizes treatment, it does not provide a lien remedy for payment. Under the majority’s analysis, Doctor Bergenstal can employ three psychological assistants and use Business and Professions Code section 2913 as a billing mechanism to quadruple his practice and enjoy the lien remedy for payment.
The Legislature clearly had something else in mind when it created the Board of Psychology to regulate psychological assistants. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§2913, 2920.) The Board of Psychology regulations provide that Doctor Bergenstal must “inform each client or patient in writing prior to the rendering of services by the psychological assistant that the assistant is *1282unlicensed and is under the direction and supervision of the supervisor as an employee.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 1391.6 subd. (b), italics added.) The doctor may not “charge a fee or otherwise require monetary payment in consideration for the employment or supervision of a psychological assistant.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 1391.8, subd. (a).)
Nothing in the record indicates that Doctor Bergenstal gave advance written notice that Chaparro would be providing the psychiatric treatment. Doctor Bergenstal submitted a lien claim for Chaparro’s services after the fact.
Until today, the law was straightforward and settled. The lien remedy for medical services may only be utilized by licensed physicians as delineated in Labor Code, section 3209.3. (1 Hanna, Cal. Law of Employee Injuries and Workers’ Compensation (2d ed. 1996) Medical & Hospital Treatment, §5.02[2][b], pp. 5-7 to 5-8; see also Eisenberg v. Myers (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 814, 821 [196 Cal.Rptr. 270].) The Board of Psychology rules provide that Doctor Bergenstal may not seek payment for the supervision of Chaparro. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 1391.8, subd. (a).) The majority have redrafted Labor Code section 3209.3 and turned Business and Professions Code section 2913 on its head. I would affirm the decision of the WCAB.
Respondents’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 4, 1996. Kennard, J., and Baxter, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
A May 11, 1994, letter from the Board of Psychology indicates that Chaparro has a doctorate degree in philosophy. The letter states: “Ms. Chapparro may not hold herself out to be a psychologist in California unless she has been licensed by the Board of Psychology. . . . Ms. Chapparro has not been issued a license to practice psychology by this Board. A Ph.D. in Philosophy is not a license to practice psychology, but a degree awarded by an academic institution.’’