Deputy Attorney General Carolyn Westfall walked the Osteopathic Medical Board of California through the life cycle of disciplinary cases on Nov. 14, stressing that the process'from intake and investigation to accusation, hearing and post-decision review'is governed by the Business and Professions Code and centered on public protection.

"The disciplinary process is not about punishing the licensee... It's only about public protection," Westfall said, explaining that after investigation a case may be closed, returned for further investigation, accepted for prosecution, or accepted with conditions. She clarified the burden of proof in board actions as "clear and convincing evidence," and reviewed interim tools such as petitions for an interim suspension order and PC 23 applications to restrict practice while criminal matters are pending.

Westfall also described filing deadlines: accusations generally must be filed within three years of discovery or seven years from the act, with exceptions for fraud, concealment and minor victims. If an accusation is filed, the licensee may file a notice of defense, trigger reciprocal discovery obligations, and pursue hearings before an administrative law judge. The ALJ issues a proposed decision and the board then decides whether to adopt, modify, remand, or set the matter for further briefing.

Members of the public, however, used the AG presentation as an opportunity to press the board for answers about how past complaints were handled. Michelle Montserrat Ramos of Consumers Watchdog said families had been denied notice about proposed settlements and that, under prior leadership, some death and serious-harm complaints were closed without what advocates consider adequate due process. "There was no due process for the families in these cases," she said, recounting specific Central Valley cases where she said additional evidence was not considered and special statutes of limitation for minors were denied.

Executive Director Erica Calderon and Westfall responded to board questions about routing of complaints and time-stamping. Westfall said the board and AG office are required to publish accusations (on Breeze) and service is by certified mail to the licensee'and emphasized that, when complaints are routed to the wrong licensing agency, the statute-of-limitations trigger is the date the OMBC receives and time-stamps the complaint.

Why it matters: The AG's guidance clarified procedural standards, burden of proof and the board's scope of authority. Consumer advocates said historical failures eroded trust and urged the board to ensure complainants receive notice of proposed settlements and that minor victims receive statutory protections. The board's staff said steps have been taken to improve complaint intake, outreach and the use of patient impact statements.