BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2427
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2427 (Eng)
As Introduced February 21, 2008
Majority vote
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Eng, Emmerson, Carter, | | |
| |Hayashi | | |
| |Hernandez, Horton, | | |
| |Plescia, Price, | | |
| |Torrico, Furutani | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Restricts a city or county from prohibiting groups of
persons authorized by one of the agencies in the Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA) by a license, certificate, or other such
means to engage in a particular business, from engaging in their
business, occupation, profession, or from engaging in any act or
series of acts that fall within the statutory or regulatory
definition of that business, occupation, or profession, as
defined by state law.
EXISTING LAW makes it unlawful for a city or county to prohibit
a person, authorized by one of the agencies of the DCA to engage
in a particular business, from engaging in that business,
occupation, or profession or any portion thereof.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : According to the author's office, "AB 2427 would
prohibit a city or county from prohibiting individuals, who are
licensed or certified by the DCA from engaging in their
business, occupation, profession, or any portion thereof, or
from engaging in any act or series of acts that fall within the
statutory or regulatory definition of that business, occupation,
or profession.
"This bill is applicable to all professionals licensed by the
DCA. It is critical that only properly educated, trained
professionals, working in conjunction with the legislature and
California professional boards and bureaus, define policies
AB 2427
Page 2
relative to permissible practice standards, including those
standards pertaining to highly complex human and animal medical
procedures.
"The California legislature, the DCA, and the boards and bureaus
overseen by the Department, should have the ultimate authority
over both medical scope of practice issues and professional
standards for non-medical boards. Without legislation ensuring
uniform statewide governance of licensed professions,
professional standards will be dissimilar and discordant.
Licensed professionals should not have the scope of permissible
practice be subject to individualized local restrictions, nor
should a practitioner in one county be prohibited from
performing a professionally-recognized act that a practitioner
in the next county may perform."
Recently, the City of West Hollywood adopted an ordinance that
would ban veterinarians who practice within the city limits from
declawing domestic cats. The West Hollywood ordinance marks the
first time that a certain city or county has deemed that a
veterinarian shall be prohibited from performing a surgical act
that is authorized under the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act
(VMPA). As a consequence, the California Veterinary Medical
Association (CVMA) entered into a lawsuit against the City of
West Hollywood.
The suit argued that the ordinance was preempted by the VMPA and
Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code which states:
"No city or county shall prohibit a person, authorized by one of
the agencies in the Department of Consumer Affairs by a license,
certificate, or other such means to engage in a particular
business, from engaging in that business, occupation, or
profession or any portion thereof. Nothing in this section
shall prohibit any city or county or city and county from
levying a business license tax solely for revenue purposes nor
any city or county from levying a license tax solely for the
purpose of covering the cost of regulation."
Several key groups such as the DCA, the California Dental
Association, the California Optometric Association, and the
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) joined in support
of CVMA's lawsuit effort by writing amicus letters to the court.
After the Los Angeles County Superior Court struck down the
West Hollywood ordinance, the appellate court reversed the
AB 2427
Page 3
decision on a 2-1 vote, and the California Supreme Court chose
not to hear the case.
The appellate court decision read, "Although section 460
prohibits local legislation imposing separate and additional
licensing requirements or other qualifications on individuals
holding state licenses issued by agencies of the DCA, it does
not preclude otherwise valid local regulation of the manner in
which a business or profession is performed." The court
concluded that Section 460 does not preempt the West Hollywood
anti-declawing ordinance on the basis that: "Because the
ordinance is an anti-cruelty measure and it is not directed
solely to veterinarians, but to any person who authorizes or
performs such procedures, including the owner of the animal, it
is outside the scope of section 460, even as the statute was
interpreted by DCA's legal office [which did not focus on the
cruelty aspect, but rather on the hierarchical structure of
state and local regulation] and by the trial court. Finally, by
its terms section 460 prohibits local governments from imposing
additional licensing conditions or qualification as a
requirement for working within their jurisdiction but does not
preclude local regulation of the manner in which state licensees
actually perform their business or profession." Thus, the court
interpreted section 460 as banning localities from issuing
additional requirements, not from limiting existing ones.
The appellate court's decision raises important questions of law
specifically related to the construction and application of
Business and Professions Code section 460. This bill seeks to
clarify existing statute by adding the language, "or from
engaging in any act or series of acts that fall within the
statutory or regulatory definition of that business, occupation,
or profession," in order to continue to adequately enforce
statewide standards of professional practice.
It is important to note that this bill does not seek to undo the
West Hollywood ordinance, it addresses the important issue that
is raised by the ability of local municipalities to ban specific
practices of professions regulated by the DCA and asserts that
it is critical to have statewide oversight and ultimate
authority over professional "acts or series of acts that fall
within the statutory or regulatory definition of that business,
occupation, or profession." Some examples of professions and
acts that could be affected by local government bans on specific
AB 2427
Page 4
practices are: the practice of acupuncture and other alternative
health care such as homeopathic medicine; the performance of
cosmetic surgery and other elective surgeries that are not
medically necessary; and, the ability of pharmacists to dispense
various drugs like emergency contraception, vaccinations, and
psychotropic drugs.
According to the sponsors of the bill, CVMA, "Professional
organizations and the DCA all agree that undermining statewide
uniformity in licensed practice standards will harm professional
practice and professional service."
CDA's amicus letter to the California Supreme Court, states,
"The CDA is specifically concerned that the appellate decision,
if allowed to stand, may adversely affect the health of
Californians by relegating to local municipalities what is
properly the domain of state licensing authorities and the state
legislature. Based on the appellate ruling, a local
municipality could - for reasons based on popular opinion or
otherwise, and without proven and reputable scientific evidence
- arbitrarily determine that a certain medical procedure was no
longer within the scope of practice or a given health care
profession and ban its use. The CDA believes that all decisions
affecting the health of the public should be left to the
discretion of the state licensing authority governing the
relevant profession and the California state legislature. It is
only in this arena where the full analysis and discussion of
scientific evidence related to medical issues comes to light,
and where the public is best protected through the establishment
of uniform laws and regulations that apply to all Californians."
The AVMA amicus letter to the California Supreme Court argues,
"State regulation of veterinary medicine, a system that has well
served the American public and animal patients over 100 years,
will be undermined if cities, villages, and counties get a green
light to chip away at the uniformity of state veterinary
practices acts and the regulations issued by state veterinary
medical boards, as authorized by those statutes."
The DCA's amicus letter to the California Supreme Court, states,
"The concept of statewide professional licensure relies on the
legislative delegation of authority to state agencies which
possess the necessary expertise to regulate the conduct of the
AB 2427
Page 5
professions. A municipal body generally lacks that professional
expertise, and should not be allowed to substitute its judgment
for that of the licensed medical professionals who are appointed
to regulate the profession and advise the legislature, in this
case, the California Veterinary Medical Board."
Analysis Prepared by : Josefina Ramirez / B. & P. / (916)
319-3301
FN: 0004120