Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Unlicensed Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Unlicensed practice drives three‑quarters of board enforcement caseload, staff say
Summary
Board staff reported that 75% of current enforcement activity involves unlicensed practice; members discussed limited remedies and citation caps that constrain cost recovery.
The California Board of Naturopathic Medicine told members on Jan. 23 that unlicensed practice continues to dominate its enforcement workload, accounting for roughly three‑quarters of new cases and straining limited enforcement resources.
Executive Officer Rebecca Mitchell reported 16 new enforcement cases in the October–December quarter: 12 unlicensed and four involving licensees. At the time of the meeting the board had 26 total pending enforcement cases, 16 unlicensed and 10 involving licensed practitioners.
Why it matters: Staff said unlicensed practice cases frequently include misuse of the “ND” title, failure to provide required disclaimers about unlicensed practice, diagnosis or treatment beyond lawful scope, and in some instances recommendations to stop prescribed medications. Board staff said these cases can include substantial public‑safety risk and sometimes require field investigations.
Investigation process and limits: Board staff described the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Division of Investigation (DFI) as the unit that conducts undercover or field probes on higher‑priority matters; those investigations are funded through a pro‑rata process and can be costly. Rebecca Mitchell said the board can issue education letters that often secure compliance, but when subjects do not comply the board may issue citations up to the $5,000 statutory cap that applies generally across the department unless the board has a specific, higher statutory authority.
Board concerns and options: Members noted that many violators comply after education but others repeat violations, and that there is limited ability to recoup investigation costs when the subject is not a licensee. Dr. Satara Theis suggested greater coordination with other medical boards (for example, referring clear medical‑practice violations to the Medical Board of California), and board members discussed using enforcement data as part of the sunset review case for stronger statutory tools.
Next steps: Staff said they will prepare more detailed enforcement statistics for future meetings and will consult legal staff and the AG’s office about expanding enforcement tools and cost‑recovery options where permitted by law.
