[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6454861,"mediaKeyId","5857858-504821b7b4f2d331be7ac485bca2081e","parentId",5857858,"title","Physical Therapy Board advances sunset review and exempt‑position request; flags inconsistency in Megan’s Law petition rules","audioSeconds",2210,"startMs",1137000,"endMs",3347000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5857858-504821b7b4f2d331be7ac485bca2081e&start=1137&end=3347","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5857858-504821b7b4f2d331be7ac485bca2081e/thumbnail_1137000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6454861/California/Physical-Therapy-Board-advances-sunset-review-and-exemptposition-request-flags-inconsistency-in-Megans-Law-petition-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454861-637cfeeaee4630b73cd88888ae5312f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775464402&Signature=Cut--554CRX8~QMCdRwKLixrkVi0OuggG9v8TczuV~JSQWa5nozWfyPxFqPxBT~oGKAJzDT2Oy0k4sDNsOPYDLrFNaWl5srO9Gp4NdtI4kszVidn0jcpYNmiUMc0C2b1pYERw~2v7BzNQ8jpl5iqnr-YgdHN~WsYsEW3ZkdResd5LUv8sXI6MhQgdtxu2NvdwgKP1gdU2NAOcR~oPx-vgEEoX-YETQID3fraqdmOhXhs1cIPAbz3hv2irO0X8w6xKJjjZHjtHNqtqt7rEB7XIpqomvHYUVGS5P5RKmRfdyhVx~1TGUcQHHUF8BRNNcDOCeyg5kzEwTJAZupvZB4GeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Respiratory Care Board of California","date","2025-09-29T21:13:10Z","article","The Physical Therapy Board of California on Sept. 23 discussed next steps for its sunset review and an exempt‑position reclassification request for its executive officer, and raised a separate policy issue about how the board treats petitioners who remain subject to Megan’s Law registration.

Board members and staff said they plan to produce a draft justification for reclassifying the executive‑officer position in November and submit that draft to the Department of Consumer Affairs’ (DCA) Office of Human Resources (OHR) for review, with a goal to return a recommendation for board consideration in December or, if needed, March 2026.

Board member Samuel Que, reporting on the committee’s work, said: “In November, we're planning to have a draft justification on the EPR and then submit it to the OHR for review.” The committee reported it has met multiple times and is preparing comparative data on similar boards and positions to support the classification request.

Why it matters: The exempt‑position reclassification (EPR) can change the job’s pay/level and how it is handled within the state personnel system. Board counsel and DCA staff told members that CalHR (the state’s human resources arm for exempt executive appointments) must ultimately approve any change. Jason Kaiser, the board’s executive officer, and DCA HR staff described the EPR work as a board‑driven recommendation that then undergoes multiple levels of review at OHR, CalHR and the governor’s office.

Process and timeline details
- Committee work: Board members said the EPR/sunset committee has met multiple times and will run a WhenToMeet poll to schedule a one‑day workshop in October (proposed second or third week) to review the draft sunset report and EPR justification. The committee recommended reserving a Sacramento conference room for a public workshop and noted the workshop would not be webcast.
- Review steps: Staff told the board the draft EPR justification would go to OHR in November, OHR expected to return review comments within a week, and the board could discuss an adoption or further deliberation in December or March 2026 alongside the EO’s evaluation.
- Comparatives and evidence: Committee members said they will compare staffing, budget, regulatory complexity and other factors across DCA boards and similar health‑care boards to justify any classification change.

DCA HR and CalHR roles
Deputy Director Nicole Le and DCA HR staff member Olivia Trejo participated in the committee meetings to explain process and documentation expectations. As staff summarized: the board’s recommendation is one input; CalHR evaluates exempt classifications and makes the ultimate determination. Committee members said that framing the EPR in the context of the board’s sunset obligations and regulatory complexity strengthens the justification.

Petition for reinstatement and Megan’s Law inconsistency
During the sunset committee discussion, staff flagged a statutory inconsistency that affects how the board handles petitions for reinstatement from former licensees who are required to register under Penal Code section 290 (commonly called Megan’s Law).

Staff described the issue this way: the Physical Therapy Practice Act provision that denies licensure to an applicant who is required to register under Penal Code section 290 appears stricter for initial applicants than the statute governing petitions for reinstatement. As staff put it, the board “shall deny a physical therapist license … to an applicant who is required to register pursuant to section 290 of the penal code,” but a revoked licensee who remains on the Penal Code 290 registry may nevertheless file a petition for reinstatement three years after revocation and be heard by the board.

Staff said that creates an inconsistency and administrative burden: a petition hearing requires review, background checks and a hearing even while the petitioner remains a Megan’s Law registrant. Staff proposed two possible policy responses: (1) statutory language to make petition outcomes consistent with the application denial rule (which would require legislative change), and (2) charging a processing fee for petition filings to help recover investigative and hearing costs. The staff presentation noted petition hearings can be expensive — potentially costing “upwards of $10,000” when investigative, attorney‑general and administrative hearing costs are included.

Board members and staff expressed caution about attaching fees that could deter legitimate due‑process petitions, but supported further analysis of whether a petition fee comparable to an initial application fee would be appropriate and whether statute should align petition rules with application rules.

Other items raised in committee reports
- Proposed new topics for staff to study during the sunset effort included (as staff listed): models for consent and use of artificial intelligence in documentation, workforce data for California physical therapists, continued attention to dry‑needling regulation, and requirements for foreign‑trained physical therapists. Committee members said some of these were raised during public comment at previous meetings and that staff would bring detailed proposals to future meetings.
- Public comment: a member of the public asked how to place the animal physical therapy topic on a future agenda and was told public commenters may ask that at the designated agenda item for items for future meetings.

What’s next
Board members directed staff to continue drafting the EPR justification and the sunset report, to schedule the proposed October workshop and to bring the draft justification back for board consideration in December or March 2026 if needed. Staff also agreed to analyze the potential petition fee, compile comparative data, and draft possible legislative language if the board decides to pursue statutory change regarding petition treatment for registrants under Penal Code section 290.

Ending note: The board emphasized the work is preliminary and procedural: no final EPR classification or legislative text was approved at the Sept. 23 meeting.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Physical Therapy Board of California Meeting - September 23, 2025 - 1 of 2","oneSentenceSummary","The Physical Therapy Board of California on Sept. 23 discussed next steps for its sunset review and an exempt‑position reclassification request for its executive officer, and raised a separate policy issue about how the board treats reinstatement petitions by people required to register under Penal Code section 290 (Megan’s Law).","taxTitle","Respiratory Care Board of California, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",76751,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6454852,"PT Board approves June 2025 minutes with amendments, 4‑0",89,541000,630000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5857858-504821b7b4f2d331be7ac485bca2081e&start=541&end=630","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5857858-504821b7b4f2d331be7ac485bca2081e/thumbnail_541000.jpg","/articles/6454852/California/PT-Board-approves-June-2025-minutes-with-amendments-40","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454852-f90fa2b249bd5ab93b2fcbe5fff3c6c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775464402&Signature=TOyg8L9P70nc5P0NyBF4x3kekR5FGE~GiSI831ORSlqf3B5lp3TuaXsfJsHSlKwLCelFkd1vJrINhAJbglNmZMgcUMQn20xgTBz9eAxzKIsLnz~LYUx9YQ2lKN~Ge8XUPv6BQpU2gtHNUYmkmYvF9bsaRqhiP~Ooqcmf5gtURTH25~0qzzhcuQfCz1572t2FL6-ur2xpUjSm1fdJLR7Zgy0h9xZv5POKThoKehg9xAF55OJzcRXJa49EuKlY7M3BKT0oD0KyXSQmGX5SegWXDD527CyJ2EtyhKOzBKYByWT0u45wMdV6-lJuvGlLP7dmeKw9xWGpgyplXF3Nr3VZTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Sept. 23 meeting in Loma Linda, the Physical Therapy Board of California voted 4‑0, with member Tanya McMillan absent, to approve the June 2025 meeting minutes as amended.

Board members called the roll and then considered corrections across multiple pages of the draft minutes. Following a motion “to accept the minutes with amendments” and a second, board members Karen Brandon, Samuel Que, Dale Armstrong and Carla Kaloff voted yes. The board clerk recorded the vote as 4‑0 and the motion carried.

The board then proceeded to the president’s report and committee updates.

","The Physical Therapy Board of California voted 4‑0 with one member absent to accept the June 2025 meeting minutes as amended.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6454856,"Deputy AG briefs PT Board on disciplinary process, stressing public protection and due process",2600,3746000,6346000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5857858-504821b7b4f2d331be7ac485bca2081e&start=3746&end=6346","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5857858-504821b7b4f2d331be7ac485bca2081e/thumbnail_3746000.jpg","/articles/6454856/California/Deputy-AG-briefs-PT-Board-on-disciplinary-process-stressing-public-protection-and-due-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454856-94d9cd43a596f151b1e5263a82b026ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1775464402&Signature=nHPVjxSXOL8S-5Unqazb3R1WEgIcUzmXpzYvcBiRaQZzLBxDfLjwaWVHAev1V7eHNxb8HTEqtriE~DjFSntkU7GDdQXtjZ~29ueq5eZ544wJBFrTntgKY2QLAwUA9BuG29UE9HEvUkCg0gZBSTbOC02w05O6a8sPqjotwf8MbFPTdgGLW1UOMou-CYKQqjEL1Hf5hNYZ24XTIxvacVD~yStO3Om7kXBABVAoyU4KHzghvnG3P42kmYj-oUaI5Yoj8UkbFrWl~te~tgrkhreiVeQFLVjXlTg3dAq7Wsng9JaIJB7CZg5aJRkhCKJRijrkvVwMXmiFi1ZYhMM3ZqzsQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Deputy Attorney General John Gatchit told the Physical Therapy Board of California on Sept. 23 that the board’s disciplinary work must be guided by the state’s overarching duty to protect the public while preserving licensees’ due‑process rights.

Gatchit, liaison from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) Health Quality Enforcement Section, gave a detailed presentation on how complaints are investigated, when the AGO drafts and files accusations, the role of administrative law judges and the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the board’s responsibilities in imposing discipline. “Protection of the public remains the paramount duty,” Gatchit said.

Key takeaways
- Investigation to accusation: Complaints are investigated by the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Division of Investigation; staff and AGO assess whether evidence meets the high administrative burden of clear and convincing evidence required for professional‑license disciplinary actions.
- Possible outcomes: Gatchit outlined the range of board actions, from citation and fine, public reprimand, probation with monitoring, interim suspension petitions (for immediate danger), to revocation or surrender of a license. He said probation and rehabilitation remain tools where public protection can be maintained without permanent removal from practice.
- Interim and emergency actions: The board, via its executive officer, may seek interim suspension petitions from the Office of Administrative Hearings when there is an immediate risk to the public; those petitions can be granted ex parte and later must be followed by a full hearing.
- Burden of proof: Because physical therapy is classified as a professional license, disciplinary cases require clear and convincing evidence; licensing decisions on applicants (who have no vested property right) use a lower preponderance‑of‑evidence standard.
- Criminal conduct and reporting: The AGO receives criminal arrest/conviction notifications and assesses whether convictions materially relate to the licensee’s duties. The AGO and staff look to whether conduct is “substantially related” to the qualifications, functions and duties of a physical therapist.

Legal roles and process
Gatchit described the AGO’s role as the litigation and prosecution arm for health‑care boards and explained distinctions among the agency roles: DCA legal counsel provides in‑meeting legal advice; AGO DAGs prosecute and litigate; administrative law judges are impartial fact‑finders; and the board members serve as the final decision‑makers on proposed decisions or stipulations.

On settlements and stipulations, Gatchit said most cases are resolved by stipulated settlement letters negotiated between parties; the board receives staff recommendations and can adopt or reject stipulations. He emphasized that ‘‘soft’’ admissions or full admissions are treated the same legally in an order, and that stipulations commonly include clawback provisions making admissions enforceable if probation is later violated.

Board guidance
Gatchit urged board members to treat themselves as a tribunal when reviewing proposed decisions, remain mindful of due process and avoid ex parte contacts with litigants. He also noted the role of mandatory and early settlement conferences before hearings, where an ALJ may act as a neutral settlement officer to assist negotiation.

Board members asked questions about bias, the difference between surrender and revocation, use of inspection authority, timeliness of investigations, and how the AGO forms recommended penalties. Gatchit and AGO senior staff responded that: judgeship‑like restraint is required when voting on proposed decisions; surrender and revocation are practically equivalent for purposes of reinstatement (both require a petition process); and the PT board’s inspection authority is a powerful investigative tool that must be used carefully to protect patient confidentiality.

Public interest and next steps
Board members and staff praised the presentation and requested the slide deck for training purposes. Gatchit and AGO staff offered to return with additional materials if the board wants further detail on settlement practices, expert witness use, or timelines.

","Deputy Attorney General John Gatchit presented an overview of the legal and administrative process for investigations, accusations, hearings, and sanctions affecting physical‑therapy licensees, emphasizing that \"protection of the public remains the paramount duty.\"","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Physical Therapy Board advances sunset review and exempt‑position request; flags inconsistency in Megan’s Law petition rules

PT Board approves June 2025 minutes with amendments, 4‑0

Deputy AG briefs PT Board on disciplinary process, stressing public protection and due process