Medical Board adopts rule to recover costs for petitions for penalty relief, adds initial down‑payment and ALJ review

The Medical Board of California voted to adopt modified emergency rulemaking that requires petitioners seeking penalty relief to pay an initial review fee when they file and allows an administrative law judge (ALJ) to recommend any additional adjudication fee for board approval. Board staff said the change responds to public comments that an up‑front fee equal to the board’s full historical adjudication cost would be an excessive barrier.

At the board’s quarterly meeting in Fresno, staff presented an alternative to the originally noticed regulation after receiving nine written comments during the 45‑day comment period. Under the modified proposal staff described at the meeting, petitioners seeking reinstatement would submit an initial review fee when filing; petitioners seeking modification or early termination of probation would submit a smaller initial review fee to start the board’s review. The ALJ would then consider petitioner ability to pay and the reasonableness of remaining adjudication costs and may propose a remaining adjudication fee (subject to board approval). Staff also proposed a ceiling (a cap) on total adjudication costs recoverable through the process; the modified text clarifies that the fee process would apply only to hearings and decisions adopted after the rule’s effective date.

Board staff said the revised approach seeks to balance the Legislature’s grant of authority to recover reasonable processing costs with concerns raised by commenters that a single up‑front charge equal to the full average adjudication cost could block rehabilitated practitioners from seeking relief. The materials presented at the meeting included staff’s workload estimates and historical averages for services provided by the Attorney General’s Office and the Office of Administrative Hearings.

During public comment, the California Medical Association urged the board to withdraw the rulemaking, arguing the proposal could create a financial barrier and noting the board’s improving fiscal position. The board’s legal and rulemaking staff answered questions from members about timelines, caps, and the mechanics of having the ALJ propose the remaining adjudication fee and the board retain final authority to approve, reduce, or eliminate any requested remainder.

The motion to approve the staff responses to comments and the modified regulatory text passed on a roll‑call vote. The motion was moved by Doctor Yip and seconded by Doctor Mahmood. The board’s roll call returned unanimous support: Doctor Bullock — yes; Miss Chung — yes; Doctor Helzer — yes; Miss Mitchell — yes; Doctor Mahmood — yes; Miss Remke — yes; Doctor Thorpe — yes; Miss Torres — yes; Doctor Tsai — yes; Mr. Watkins — yes; Doctor Yip — yes; Miss Lawson (president) — yes. The board directed staff to publish the modified text for the additional 15‑day comment period required under the Administrative Procedure Act and to proceed with the rulemaking steps described in the meeting materials.

The change does not itself alter underlying statutes; it implements the board’s authority to set fees for petitions for penalty relief (Business and Professions Code §2307.5) by establishing the procedural mechanism for an initial board review fee and subsequent adjudication fee determination at hearing.

Votes at the meeting on this item were recorded and the board’s amended regulatory text was ordered posted for an additional 15‑day public comment period before final adoption steps.