Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Podiatric board reports investigation backlog, longer case timelines and rising hearing costs
Summary
Staff told the Podiatric Medical Board of California that investigations slowed during last year because of vacancies, average investigation time rose to about 325 days, Attorney General hearings are costly and the board recovered roughly $99,032 in the first two quarters for probation and citations.
The Podiatric Medical Board of California heard an enforcement update on investigation processing, disciplinary actions and cost recovery during its meeting on Jan. 23, 2025.
Board staff reported that a backlog in desk investigations produced slower case flow during the July–December 2024 reporting period. “We did not have an assigned analyst at the medical board for desk investigations for about 6 months. So this did produce a bit of a backlog,” investigator Bethany said, pointing to staff vacancies and data issues the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is working to correct.
Those delays coincided with a rise in case-processing times: staff reported an average of about 325 days to complete desk and field investigations in the first two quarters, up from roughly 130 days in the prior-year period. Bethany told the board that the average rose because the slow-moving desk investigations increased the combined average, but that recent hires should reduce times going forward.
The board logged 75 complaints and 78 investigations assigned during the two-quarter period, a modest increase over the prior year. Bethany said 30 desk investigations were pending in July 2024 and that number rose to 71 by December 2024 before full hiring in the unit.
Attorney General (AG) litigation and hearings also increased in the period. Bethany reported eight discipline cases were initiated through the AG’s office during the two quarters — “an increase of 167% over 3 cases initiated the first 2 quarters of the prior year” — and said staff were tracking about 16 active AG cases pending completion. Those AG matters took an average of about 1,066 days to complete in the reported period, she said, down from about 1,155 days the prior year.
Board members pressed staff about the financial consequences of AG hearings. Bethany said the board does not receive separate cost recovery for the hearing itself, and that the hearing-related costs may therefore be an additional budget burden. “A recent hearing that lasted a full week cost us over $50,000 just in the ALJ costs,” she said.
Legal counsel Ben South explained why charging a fee in advance for board adjudication is legally complicated. “There is case law that says that the board basically under due process — since we’re a government body — we have to give people due process and charging for the board’s time as the adjudicator would violate due process,” he said. South and staff said the office is monitoring other boards’ actions and any litigation arising if those boards implement application fees for petition processes.
Board members also discussed whether petitioners for reinstatement could be asked to pay fees or deposits to defray hearing costs. Bethany said petitioners must pay costs ordered at the time of revocation and any prior fees before reinstatement, but there is currently no mechanism to require upfront payment of the hearing costs themselves. Staff said other boards (the Medical Board was cited) are exploring modest application fees for petitions, and that the Podiatric board will follow developments.
On cost recovery, staff reported the board collected $80,571.44 in cost recovery, $13,460.45 in probation monitoring fees and $5,000 in citation payments — a total of $99,031.89 for the first two quarters — and that the total is roughly on track with the prior fiscal year’s pace. Bethany noted the board is issuing more public letters of reprimand with conditions rather than placing people on probation in some matters.
Board members asked staff to return with possible policy options on recouping hearing costs and to continue monitoring how the new hires affect investigation timeliness.
Votes and formal actions on enforcement reporting were procedural (receipt and acceptance of the executive officer reports), not changes to enforcement policy. The board did not adopt a new fee or charge at this meeting.
Ending: Staff said the investigation backlog should shrink as vacancies are filled; the board will follow up on possible legislative or regulatory options to address hearing costs and on the effects of the new hires on case processing.
