Louisiana OT advisory committee clarifies monthly supervision requirement but stops short of giving legal advice

The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners Occupational Therapy Advisory Committee agreed on Sept. 12 that the May 2025 rule changes require a minimum monthly meeting between a supervising occupational therapist (OT) and an occupational therapy assistant (OTA), but the rules do not explicitly require the OT to personally treat the patient monthly.

The committee’s discussion began after an OTA practitioner asked whether “general supervision must occur monthly” and specifically whether that meant the OT “has to treat the patient at least monthly.” Committee members and counsel reviewed the rule language and the definition of a “client care conference.”

Committee members noted the rules say general supervision “is required for an OT assistant” and “that means they need to meet monthly at minimum.” The committee emphasized the acceptable formats for that meeting: direct observation, modeled demonstration, co‑treatment, discussion, teaching, phone or video conference. Lauren Sudduth, LSBME attorney, told the committee that the supervision rule establishes meeting frequency but “we did not specify the frequency it has to be more often depending on the setting and the complexity of the client,” and that the onus is on the OT and OTA to determine when more frequent contact is needed.

The committee further reviewed the client care conference definition, which the group read as requiring that the supervising OT “must have previously evaluated or treated the client” when convening the conference. The committee interpreted that to mean an OT who has not previously evaluated or treated a given client would need to do so (for example by co‑treating) before relying on a client care conference to meet the supervision requirement.

Members also discussed how the advisory committee should respond in writing to practitioners who ask for interpretations. Patricia Wilton, executive counsel to the board, advised caution: while staff can direct practitioners to the rule text and explain where to find relevant sections, the board and its counsel cannot provide individualized legal advice that practitioners may rely upon in lieu of private counsel. Wilton explained the usual practice: point practitioners to the applicable rules, note that the committee cannot give legal advice, and, when appropriate, recommend the practitioner consult a private attorney or an association attorney (for example LOTA) when fact‑specific legal guidance is needed.

The committee asked staff to draft a response to the practitioner confirming the interpretation (monthly meetings required; OT need only treat the patient if the supervising OT has not previously evaluated or treated the client) and to circulate the draft to counsel for review before sending.

The committee did not vote on a formal advisory opinion. The draft response will be prepared for counsel review and then sent in the usual manner to the practitioner.