Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts revised disciplinary guidelines, implements uniform standards for substance‑abusing licensees
Summary
The board rescinded prior proposed text and approved revised disciplinary guidelines and regulatory language to implement uniform standards for substance‑abusing licensees, revise probation terms and clarify monitoring and reporting requirements; the motion passed unanimously.
The California Acupuncture Board voted Nov. 6 to rescind previously approved regulatory language from Oct. 26, 2023 and adopt new proposed text and edits to the disciplinary guidelines (16 CCR §1399.469) implementing uniform standards and other statutory changes. Vice President Francisco Kim moved the motion and Member Ruben Osorio seconded; a roll‑call vote was unanimous.
Staff said revisions were made after Department of Consumer Affairs review and focused on title simplification, alignment to statutory authority and clearer probation and monitoring procedures. Specific changes noted in the packet include deleting references to "uniform standards..." from the guidelines’ title for simplicity; incorporating quarterly report elements directly into guideline language; deleting automatic probation extensions tied to acceptance of a quarterly report; amending probation terms to add acupuncture assistance to the list of persons a licensee on probation cannot employ; revising cost‑recovery provisions previously proposed for probation extensions due to legal authority concerns; and specifying that practice monitors prepare and submit quarterly written evaluations to improve direct source communication.
Staff also removed provisions that automatically suspended licenses when a replacement monitor was not approved and replaced them with language prohibiting the licensee from engaging in practice until compliance. The packet clarified that certain deletions and edits were taken because of legal authority concerns raised in the regulation review process.
On sanctions, staff added an explicit clarification that revocation is the recommended maximum penalty in cases where a respondent is not qualified for licensure under BPC §4955.1a (securing a license by fraud or deception). Board materials and staff repeatedly stressed that legal counsel reviewed authority limits and that the edits sought to conform to those constraints.
The motion directs staff to submit the revised text to the Department of Consumer Affairs and relevant agencies for review and to return for a hearing if adverse comments are received during the notice period.
