Osteopathic board approves initiating rulemaking that would require $20,000 adjudication deposit for petitions

The Osteopathic Medical Board of California voted to initiate rulemaking on a package of regulatory changes that would raise or clarify multiple application fees, create a retired‑license status, and establish a two‑step petition process requiring an up‑front adjudication deposit of $20,000.

At the board’s meeting this month, legislative and regulatory staff said the package focuses on fee collection and procedural clarity so the board can recover the actual costs of hearings. Terry Thorfinson, the board’s legislative and regulatory specialist, reviewed the proposal and said the $20,000 adjudication deposit would cover costs charged by the Attorney General’s Office, the Office of Administrative Hearings and certified shorthand reporters and that any excess would be refunded to the petitioner after the hearing.

“Those costs are the big ticket items,” said Christy Shields, regulations counsel. She explained the initial petition application fee would remain lower — listed in the draft as $2,800 for reinstatement and $1,500 for modification of penalty — to cover staff processing, and the larger $20,000 deposit would be required to secure scheduling of an adjudicative hearing.

Staff said the board has statutory authority to recover reasonable costs under recently enacted Business and Professions provisions cited in the package and that attachment 6 of the materials contains workload and fiscal analyses supporting the proposed amounts.

Public commenters and board members asked how hardship would be addressed for licensees who cannot afford the fees. Shields said cost‑recovery is a policy choice: the board previously supported legislation to permit recovery of those costs and staff designed the package to reflect that legislative direction. Thorfinson added the $20,000 is a maximum and the board will refund any difference if actual costs are lower.

Holly McCriss, executive director of the Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California, told the board she expected member questions during the 45‑day public comment period and asked staff to clarify which fees correspond to which step; staff pointed to tables in attachment 6 that separate application-processing costs from adjudication costs.

The board read a motion to approve the regulatory text in attachments 1–5, submit the package to the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for review, and—if no adverse comments are received—authorize the executive director to proceed with formal rulemaking. The motion was seconded and carried on roll call.

What’s next: The package moves into the 45‑day public comment period. If no adverse comments are filed and no hearing is requested, staff said the executive director may complete the rulemaking steps. If comments are received, staff will bring any substantive changes back to the board for consideration.