Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Board revises application rules, debates mental-health question over legal risk

November 08, 2024 | Physician Assistant Board, Other State Agencies, Executive, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board revises application rules, debates mental-health question over legal risk
Regulations counsel returned revised application regulatory text to the board on Nov. 8 to reflect the agency’s move to online application systems and to conform with recent legislation limiting what criminal-history or health questions agencies may collect.

Counsel highlighted four kinds of documents that must still be submitted outside the online platform (for example, National Data Bank self-query reports and fingerprint results) and walked the board through language added to align with recent changes such as Assembly Bill 2138 (limiting the collection of criminal-history information on applications).

A lengthy policy discussion focused on a proposed mental- and physical-health question. Counsel advised that the earlier formulation — which asked whether an applicant had “ever been diagnosed or treated” for a mental or physical condition that would interfere with practice — was likely overbroad and might invite litigation. Counsel recommended removing that broad history question, noting litigation against other licensing entities and subsequent statutory changes. As an alternative for boards that wish to retain some inquiry, counsel offered a narrowly drawn formulation used by an acupuncture board that asks only whether an applicant currently has a medical condition that impairs or limits the ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety.

Board members debated the tradeoffs: some said the narrow question would be defensible but might miss rare situations; others said the application historically returned very few affirmative responses and counsel’s suggested removal reduces litigation risk. Counsel said the board could reintroduce a targeted question later if a demonstrated need arose.

After discussion the board approved revised text consistent with counsel’s recommendations and authorized staff to submit the regulatory package to DCA for review and to proceed with the rulemaking steps outlined in the motion.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal