BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1616|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1616
Author: Wright (D), et al
Amended: 7/18/01 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE : 6-0, 7/9/01
AYES: Figueroa, Johannessen, Machado, Morrow, Murray,
O'Connell
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-1, 5/29/01 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Healing arts: disciplinary actions
SOURCE : Medical Board of California
DIGEST : This bill extends the statutes of limitations
for accusations against specified licensed health care
professionals to ten years after the alleged act or
omission occurs, when the accusation involves allegations
of sexual misconduct.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
1.Licenses and regulates physicians through the Medical
Board of California (MBC), psychologists through the
Board of Psychology (BOP), clinical social workers and
marriage and family therapist through the Board of
CONTINUED
AB 1616
Page
2
Behavioral Sciences (BBS), and respiratory care
practitioners through the Respiratory Care Board (RCB)
2.Establishes a statute of limitations for accusations
filed against licensees of the above boards, whereby
accusations must be filed within three years after the
regulatory board discovers the act or omission alleged as
the ground for disciplinary action, or within seven years
after the act or omission occurs, whichever occurs first.
3.Requires the seven-year period of the statutes of
limitations for licensees of BOP, BBS, and RCB when the
alleged act or omission involves a minor, to be tolled
until the minor reaches the age of majority. The MBC
statute of limitations does not contain this provision.
This bill:
1.Tolls the limitations period (#2 above) when necessary
documents are unavailable due to a criminal
investigation.
2.Requires accusations filed against licensees of MBC, BOP,
BBS, or RCB alleging sexual misconduct to be filed within
three years after the regulatory board discovers the act
or omission alleged as the ground for disciplinary
action, or within 10 years after the alleged act or
omission occurs, whichever occurs first.
3.Requires the limitations period for accusations against
licensees of MBC, when the alleged act or omission
involves a minor, to be tolled until the minor reaches
the age of majority.
4.Applies to complaints alleging sexual misconduct received
on or after January 1, 2002.
Comments
Purpose . According to the author's office, this bill will
lengthen the time that several boards in the State
Department of Consumer Affairs have to investigate sexual
misconduct cases and make a determination as to
disciplinary action.
AB 1616
Page
3
Background . According to MBC, the sponsor of this bill,
during the period between August 1998 and February 2000,
MBC was unable, due to the statute of limitations, to
investigate 163 complaints, 36 of which had allegations the
MBC considered urgent or of high priority. Seven of these
36 urgent or high priority cases involved allegations of
sexual misconduct. The MBC states that it has implemented
processes to find out about complaints more quickly, but
the victim does not often discuss sexual misconduct until
years after an occurrence. The MBC cites a case that
contained allegations of sexual abuse of a minor child.
According to the MBC, the sexual abuse began in the late
1980s and continued until about 1992. In September of
1999, the local District Attorney issued an arrest warrant,
and the physician was arrested in October of 1999. The MBC
received this information in September of 1999, and when
the enforcement staff reviewed the case they learned that
the sexual acts against the victim ended in early 1992.
Due to the statute of limitations, these egregious acts
could not be investigated or charged. The MBC states that
it will only be able to take action should the physician be
convicted. In the interim, the physician can practice
medicine unfettered while presenting a clear and present
danger to his patients.
Legislative History . Prior to 1998, there was no statute
of limitations restricting regulatory boards from taking
action against physicians or any other health care
provider. AB 2719 (Gallegos), Chapter 301, Statutes of
1998, established a statute of limitations of three years
from when the MBC discovers the conduct, or seven years
from when the conduct occurred, which ever occurs first.
According to the Assembly Health Committee analysis of AB
2719, the author of that bill stated that the intent was to
expedite investigations by the MBC regarding accusations
against physicians. The author's office stated that a
statute of limitations was needed to ensure that the MBC
investigates and resolves disciplinary cases in a timely
manner. AB 2719 took effect on August 17, 1998, as an
urgency statute.
The following year, SB 809 (O'Connell), Chapter 459,
Statutes of 1999, was enacted establishing similar statutes
AB 1616
Page
4
of limitations for accusations brought against licensees of
the BBS, the BOP, and the RCB. However, the statute of
limitations for these three boards requires that, if the
alleged act or omission involves a minor, the seven-year
limitations period is tolled until the minor reaches the
age of majority. The statute of limitations for the MBC
does not include this provision.
Related Legislation
SB 26 (Figueroa), of this year, revises the statute of
limitations for the RCB. SB 26 is currently on the Senate
Unfinished Business File.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/01)
Medical Board of California (source)
Board of Behavioral Sciences
Board of Psychology
National Organization for Women
California Attorney General
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/20/01)
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents contend that this bill
will strengthen existing law and provide for better
oversight in the enforcement programs of these boards.
Further, supporters believe that an extension of the
statute of limitations is a vital component of ensuring
that victims of sexual misconduct receive the justice they
deserve.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Union of American
Physicians and Dentists opposes this bill, stating that
sexual misconduct deserves prosecution within the framework
of existing law.
AB 1616
Page
5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn, Bogh, Calderon,
Canciamilla, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Chavez, Chu,
Cogdill, Cohn, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dickerson,
Dutra, Firebaugh, Frommer, Goldberg, Harman, Havice,
Hollingsworth, Horton, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe, Kelley,
Koretz, Leach, Leonard, Leslie, Liu, Longville,
Lowenthal, Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews, Migden, Mountjoy,
Nakano, Nation, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Robert Pacheco,
Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pavley, Pescetti, Reyes, Richman,
Runner, Salinas, Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg,
Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vargas, Washington,
Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wright, Wyland, Wyman, Zettel
NOES: Aanestad
CP:cm 8/22/01 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****