Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing And Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board agrees staff should draft tightened standards for expert reviewers and advanced‑practice reviewers
Summary
After extended discussion, the board instructed staff to draft clearer eligibility language for contracted reviewers: practice/expert reviewers should have eight of the last ten years in the practice area (with limits on time spent outside California); advanced‑practice reviewers should have five of the past seven years in California practice. Staff will return with proposed language.
The California Board of Occupational Therapy spent the meeting's longest block debating minimum qualifications for two types of contracted reviewers: practice reviewers/expert witnesses who advise on disciplinary cases and advanced‑practice reviewers who evaluate education for advanced approvals.
Executive Officer Austin Porter summarized current policy and asked whether the board wanted to require that contracted reviewers be living and practicing in California in addition to holding an active, unrestricted California license. He noted existing requirements: practice reviewers must show 10+ years of experience with seven years "recent" experience in the specialty area; advanced‑practice reviewers must show at least five of the past seven years practicing in the advanced practice area.
Board members and public commenters raised recruitment challenges, consumer‑protection concerns and practical contract timelines. Several board members said reviewers should be sufficiently current in practice to render reliable opinions; others warned that overly strict residency requirements would make recruitment difficult and delay investigations or approvals. Staff noted contract terms are three years, which could lengthen gaps in active practice for long contract cycles.
After wide discussion, the board settled on a staff direction rather than final regulatory language. The board asked staff to draft policy text reflecting the group’s consensus: for practice/expert reviewers, a minimum of eight of the last ten years in the relevant practice area with limits on how long a reviewer can have been out of California practice (the board discussed a two‑year gap and considered alternatives such as requiring a minimum number of years practiced in California); for advanced‑practice reviewers, at least five of the past seven years practicing in California. Staff and legal counsel were asked to prepare draft language for board review; the board did not adopt a final regulation that day.
Board members repeatedly emphasized that the goal is to balance consumer protection — ensuring reviewers know California law and practice culture — with the practical reality of recruiting qualified reviewers nationwide.
"What we're looking for is a practitioner who understands California law," Vice President Dr. Christine Whitasbach said. "You want to make sure that this practitioner...is up to date on current practice standards." Austin Porter and legal counsel agreed to draft the proposed language and return to the board for approval.
