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

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.