2010 California Code
Business and Professions Code
Article 13. Medical Adjudication

2330.  Complainants against licensees of the board, including
licensees of allied health boards within the jurisdiction of the
board, and of the Board of Podiatric Medicine, who are subject to
formal disciplinary proceedings shall be notified of the actions
proposed to be taken against the licensee. This notification shall be
provided only to complainants who are known to the boards.
   Complainants shall be given an opportunity to provide a statement
to the deputy attorney general from the Health Quality Enforcement
Section who is assigned the case. These statements shall not be
considered by a panel of the division, the Board of Podiatric
Medicine, or other board for purposes of adjudicating the case to
which the statement pertains, but may be considered by the division
or those boards after the case is finally adjudicated for purposes of
setting generally applicable policies and standards.



2332.  (a) The Division of Medical Quality or the Health Quality
Enforcement Section of the office of the Attorney General may
establish panels or lists of experts as necessary to assist them in
their respective duties. When the Division of Medical Quality or the
Health Quality Enforcement Section seeks expert assistance or
witnesses, and the use of voluntary services is impractical, they may
retain experts to assist them, and to prepare and present testimony
as appropriate, at prevailing market rates. The board shall establish
policies and procedures for the selection and use of those experts.
   (b) The Division of Medical Quality may also adopt regulations to
create a system of volunteer physicians and others in committees or
panels to assist the board in any of the following functions:
   (1) Monitoring of licensees who have been disciplined and are
subject to terms and conditions of probation or diversion.
   (2) Evaluation and administration of competency examinations.
   (3) Assistance to practitioners with special problems.
   (4) Supervision of licensees with practice restrictions.
   (5) Advice regarding policy options and preventive strategies.
   (c) Commencing January 1, 1994, any reference to a medical quality
review committee shall be deemed a reference to a panel of the
Division of Medical Quality.



2334.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect
to the use of expert testimony in matters brought by the Medical
Board of California, no expert testimony shall be permitted by any
party unless the following information is exchanged in written form
with counsel for the other party, as ordered by the Office of
Administrative Hearings:
   (1) A curriculum vitae setting forth the qualifications of the
expert.
   (2) A brief narrative statement of the general substance of the
testimony that the expert is expected to give, including any opinion
testimony and its basis.
   (3) A representation that the expert has agreed to testify at the
hearing.
   (4) A statement of the expert's hourly and daily fee for providing
testimony and for consulting with the party who retained his or her
services.
   (b) The exchange of the information described in subdivision (a)
shall be completed at least 30 calendar days prior to the
commencement date of the hearing.
   (c) The Office of Administrative Hearings may adopt regulations
governing the required exchange of the information described in this
section.



2335.  (a) All proposed decisions and interim orders of the Medical
Quality Hearing Panel designated in Section 11371 of the Government
Code shall be transmitted to the executive director of the board, or
the executive director of the California Board of Podiatric Medicine
as to the licensees of that board, within 48 hours of filing.
   (b) All interim orders shall be final when filed.
   (c) A proposed decision shall be acted upon by the board or by any
panel appointed pursuant to Section 2008 or by the California Board
of Podiatric Medicine, as the case may be, in accordance with Section
11517 of the Government Code, except that all of the following shall
apply to proceedings against licensees under this chapter:
   (1) When considering a proposed decision, the board or panel and
the California Board of Podiatric Medicine shall give great weight to
the findings of fact of the administrative law judge, except to the
extent those findings of fact are controverted by new evidence.
   (2) The board's staff or the staff of the California Board of
Podiatric Medicine shall poll the members of the board or panel or of
the California Board of Podiatric Medicine by written mail ballot
concerning the proposed decision. The mail ballot shall be sent
within 10 calendar days of receipt of the proposed decision, and
shall poll each member on whether the member votes to approve the
decision, to approve the decision with an altered penalty, to refer
the case back to the administrative law judge for the taking of
additional evidence, to defer final decision pending discussion of
the case by the panel or board as a whole, or to nonadopt the
decision. No party to the proceeding, including employees of the
agency that filed the accusation, and no person who has a direct or
indirect interest in the outcome of the proceeding or who presided at
a previous stage of the decision, may communicate directly or
indirectly, upon the merits of a contested matter while the
proceeding is pending, with any member of the panel or board, without
notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the
communication. The votes of a majority of the board or of the panel,
and a majority of the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, are
required to approve the decision with an altered penalty, to refer
the case back to the administrative law judge for the taking of
further evidence, or to nonadopt the decision. The votes of two
members of the panel or board are required to defer final decision
pending discussion of the case by the panel or board as a whole. If
there is a vote by the specified number to defer final decision
pending discussion of the case by the panel or board as a whole,
provision shall be made for that discussion before the 100-day period
specified in paragraph (3) expires, but in no event shall that
100-day period be extended.
   (3) If a majority of the board or of the panel, or a majority of
the California Board of Podiatric Medicine vote to do so, the board
or the panel or the California Board of Podiatric Medicine shall
issue an order of nonadoption of a proposed decision within 100
calendar days of the date it is received by the board. If the board
or the panel or the California Board of Podiatric Medicine does not
refer the case back to the administrative law judge for the taking of
additional evidence or issue an order of nonadoption within 100
calendar days, the decision shall be final and subject to review
under Section 2337. Members of the board or of any panel or of the
California Board of Podiatric Medicine who review a proposed decision
or other matter and vote by mail as provided in paragraph (2) shall
return their votes by mail to the board within 30 days from receipt
of the proposed decision or other matter.
   (4) The board or the panel or the California Board of Podiatric
Medicine shall afford the parties the opportunity to present oral
argument before deciding a case after nonadoption of the
administrative law judge's decision.
   (5) A vote of a majority of the board or of a panel, or a majority
of the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, are required to
increase the penalty from that contained in the proposed
administrative law judge's decision. No member of the board or panel
or of the California Board of Podiatric Medicine may vote to increase
the penalty except after reading the entire record and personally
hearing any additional oral argument and evidence presented to the
panel or board.



2336.  The Division of Medical Quality and the California Board of
Podiatric Medicine shall adopt rules, pursuant to Chapter 3.5
(commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of
the Government Code, to govern the conduct of oral argument
following nonadoption of a proposed decision. These rules shall
preclude oral argument that exceeds the scope of the record of duly
admitted evidence.



2337.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, superior court
review of a decision revoking, suspending, or restricting a license
shall take preference over all other civil actions in the matter of
setting the case for hearing or trial. The hearing or trial shall be
set no later than 180 days from the filing of the action. Further
continuance shall be granted only on a showing of good cause.
   Notwithstanding any other provision of law, review of the superior
court's decision shall be pursuant to a petition for an
extraordinary writ.