Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Fee Rulemaking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts initial fee to open petitions for penalty relief; administrative law judge to set remaining costs
Summary
The Medical Board approved modified rulemaking to collect an initial fee for petitions for penalty relief and authorized a process for an ALJ to determine remaining cost recovery up to a capped amount.
The Medical Board of California voted to proceed with revised emergency rulemaking on fees for petitions for penalty relief at its Aug. 19, 2025, meeting. The proposed rule requires petitioners seeking reinstatement or modification of discipline to pay an initial up-front fee covering board processing through referral to the Office of the Attorney General; an administrative law judge (ALJ) would then determine remaining costs to be recovered through the hearing process, subject to a statutory cap.
What the rule does and why the board proposed it - Background: Between FY 2021–2023 the board reported petition processing and hearing-related costs exceeding $1.8 million. Senate Bill 815 (2023) authorized the board to establish fees to recover those costs. - Modified approach approved by the board: Instead of requiring petitioners to pay the entire average cost (previously estimated by staff in the $20,000–$22,700 range) up front, board staff proposed — and the board approved — a two-step cost recovery method. Petitioners now pay a modest initial fee meant to cover board review and referral costs ($2,962 for reinstatement petitions; $1,242 for modification/early termination petitions). The remaining fee for ALJ and OAH services would be set by the ALJ at hearing based on evidence of ability to pay and reasonableness of the fee; the ALJ’s proposed remaining fee can be adjusted by the board. The total award is capped (board set the cap at $22,000 less the initial fee already paid under the rule as noticed).
Public comments and staff response - Neighborhood Legal Services (public comment) welcomed the reduced initial fee but sought more explicit guidance on what evidence demonstrates inability to pay. Staff recommended keeping the regulatory text flexible — petitioners can present financial hardship evidence — rather than enumerating a fixed list in regulation. - The California Medical Association (CMA) urged additional clarifications; staff recommended several edits accepted by the board (clarify maximum cap, explicitly allow reduction/waiver on financial hardship grounds, state payment-plan availability and incorporate petition form by reference).
Board action The board approved staff’s recommended responses to comments and adopted the second modified text for a 15-day comment period; board members then took the motion to move forward with the amended language and after roll-call approved the approach.
