Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Processing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney General report: accusations and adjudications rose for dental-hygiene cases; AG outlines effort to speed processing
Summary
Senior Assistant AG Carl Sani told the Dental Hygiene Board of California that referrals and accusations to the AG—s office increased in fiscal 2024—25, the number of accusations filed by the board rose sharply, and several processing intervals lengthened; the AG—s office said it is working to shorten case timelines while preserving due process.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Carl Sani presented the Attorney General—s annual report on enforcement work for Department of Consumer Affairs agencies, saying the office—s ninth report covered the fiscal year 2024—25 and was published Jan. 1, 2026.
Sani said his office measures only accusation cases for the legislature and described the data collection process (ProLaw case files that record referral, filing, hearing requests and adjudication). He told the board the AG—s office saw roughly 3,100 accusation referrals in 2324 and nearly 3,500 in the latest year, and that, statewide, approximately 56% of the office—s workload from client agencies is accusation preparation and enforcement.
Focusing on the Dental Hygiene Board of California, Sani said accusations referred to the AG—s office increased modestly (a 13% rise from fiscal 2324 to 2425) but that accusations filed by the board jumped from 8 in 2324 to 23 in 2425. He noted the number adjudicated also grew, from 7 to 21, and said his office saw a small, steady share of rejections (about 5%) usually due to death, evidentiary defects or changed agency assessments.
Sani reviewed processing intervals the AG—s office tracks: referral-to-file (67 days in 2324 vs. 98 days in 2425 for the board), file-to-settlement or default (185 days to settlement in 172 days for more recent cases), and accused-filed-to-hearing-request timing (improved in some periods). He said the office—s internal goal is to file cases within about 90 days when possible and that some intervals lengthened because of further-investigation needs, expert reports, or delays in obtaining evidence.
Board members asked questions about outstanding cases and the reasons for an observed increase in accusations. Sani said the rise could reflect more consumer complaints, increased enforcement staffing, or different classification of complaints that now reach the accusation threshold; he said the AG—s office does not decide policy about which matters are referred, it only processes referrals it receives. Sani also urged caution when comparing agencies, noting statutory duties and agency operations can produce very different metrics.
Sani closed by saying his office—s goal is to shorten case processing times while preserving due process for licensees, and he praised improved collaboration between the AG—s office and DCA client agencies.
The board did not take formal action on the report; board members thanked Sani and discussed how the enforcement numbers and timelines should inform the board—s oversight of educational programs and complaint-handling.
