Medical Board panel hears petition to shorten Dr. Arfa Babaknia’s probation; case submitted for decision

The Medical Board of California, Panel A heard oral argument Feb. 12 on a petition seeking reduction of the probationary term for Dr. Arfa Babaknia, M.D., and then closed the record and submitted the case for decision, with the panel to deliberate in closed session and mail a final order.

The petition asks the board to shorten a nine-year probationary term tied to a prior disciplinary matter. The Attorney General’s Office urged the panel to reject the proposed decision ending probation early, describing the underlying misconduct as an "abuse of power" and arguing the administrative law judge exceeded her authority by making credibility findings about the underlying accusation. Respondent counsel said the proposed reduction is modest, emphasized evidence of rehabilitation, and urged the board to accept the administrative law judge’s recommended findings.

The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge Wim Van Rooyen of the Office of Administrative Hearings. Deputy Attorney General Sarah Jacobs presented the Attorney General’s argument; Marshall Shepherdson of RJ Ryan Law spoke for the respondent. The respondent physician, identified in the record as Dr. Arfa Babaknia, M.D., was not present at the oral argument.

During argument, Marshall Shepherdson, counsel for the respondent, told the panel he would "only want to touch on just 2 main points" and described the relief sought as "the relatively modest and moderate, almost humble nature of the relief that is being requested" given the length of the probationary term and evidence the administrative law judge (ALJ) found of rehabilitation. Shepherdson argued the ALJ who heard live testimony was in the best position to judge credibility and to assess whether continued probationary oversight is necessary to protect the public.

Deputy Attorney General Sarah Jacobs urged the panel to reject the proposed decision. Jacobs said, "This case is about an abuse of power by petitioner, and an abuse of discretion by the administrative law judge." The Attorney General’s argument characterized the underlying discipline as involving the respondent's use of an "ungloved finger to digitally penetrate the victim's genitalia during an unwarranted genital exam," and argued the ALJ improperly re-litigated or made fresh credibility findings about facts that had been resolved in an earlier stipulated settlement in the disciplinary proceeding.

Jacobs also argued the petitioner had not shown rehabilitation sufficient to warrant early termination of probation, citing the nature and severity of the misconduct and contending that continued probation would provide additional public protection (for example, a chaperone requirement for female patients). She asked the board to "protect the public by rejecting the proposed decision and finding petitioner a suitable candidate for continued probation."

Respondent counsel replied that the legal authorities cited by the Attorney General do not bar an ALJ from considering the underlying incident's facts when assessing present fitness for early termination. Counsel said the standard is whether the physician is fit "now, today," and reiterated that the ALJ who took live testimony properly applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and found the respondent fit to practice without restriction.

At the conclusion of argument the ALJ closed the record and announced the case was "submitted for decision." The panel then moved to deliberate in closed session. Judge Van Rooyen told the parties that no decision would be issued that day and that the parties would receive the board's final order by mail.

No formal vote or final disposition was announced at the hearing. The record includes the Medical Board case number 800-2021-083053 and the Office of Administrative Hearings case number 2025010382.