BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1767
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1767 (Hill)
As Introduced February 9, 2010
Majority vote
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hayashi, Emmerson, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Conway, Eng, Hernandez, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Hill, Ma, Nava, Niello, | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, De |
| |Ruskin | |Leon, Hall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the Medical Board of California (MBC) to
provide legal representation to a physician and surgeon who
faces disciplinary action by a specialty board as a result of
his or her participation in an MBC evaluation. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Requires MBC to provide legal representation for a physician
and surgeon in a specialty board's disciplinary proceeding if
that individual is subject to the disciplinary proceeding as a
result of providing expertise to MBC.
2)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, unknown, likely minor fee-supported special fund
costs to MBC to provide legal expertise if a medical expert
faced disciplinary action as the result of investigative work
conducted on behalf of MBC.
COMMENTS : According to the author's office, "[MBC] does not
want to have a 'chilling effect' should a complaint be made to a
specialty board and the physicians are then required to use
their own resources to represent themselves. These physicians
should not be penalized for assisting [MBC].
"[MBC] feels that providing representation for physicians who
testify for [MBC] in disciplinary proceedings will help protect
AB 1767
Page 2
these physicians and encourage them to continue to participate
in [MBC's] enforcement process."
The MBC established the Expert Reviewer Program in July 1994 as
an impartial and professional means by which to support the
investigation and enforcement functions of MBC. Specifically,
medical experts assist MBC by providing expert reviews and
opinions on cases and conduct professional competency exams,
physical exams, and psychiatric examinations.
Requirements for participating in the Expert Reviewer Program
are:
1)Possess a current California medical license in good standing;
no prior discipline; no pending accusations; and no complaint
history within the last three years.
2)Board certification in one of the 24 American Board of Medical
Specialties (the American Board of Facial Plastic &
Reconstructive Surgery, the American Board of Pain Medicine,
the American Board of Sleep Medicine and the American Board of
Spine Surgery are also recognized) with a minimum of three
years of practice in the specialty area after obtaining board
certification.
3)Have an active practice (defined as at least 80 hours a month
in direct patient care, clinical activity, or teaching, at
least 40 hours of which is in direct patient care) or have
been non-active or retired from practice no more than two
years.
Participating physicians are reimbursed $150 per hour for
conducting case reviews and oral competency exams, $200 an hour
for providing expert testimony, and usual and customary fees for
physical or psychiatric exams.
According to MBC, a recent situation arose in which an expert
reviewer provided the MBC with external reviews of care provided
by another licensed physician in several matters under
investigation. The expert reviewer opined that certain aspects
of the care and documentation did not meet the applicable
standard of care. An accusation was filed, and the expert
reviewer testified before an administrative law judge (ALJ) who
found that one of the two issues was justified. MBC issued a
AB 1767
Page 3
public letter of reprimand against the physician being
investigated. The physician who received the letter of
reprimand subsequently filed a grievance with a medical
specialty board, of which both the expert reviewer and the
licensee being investigated are members, asking that the expert
reviewer be expelled from the specialty board for giving biased
and false testimony before the ALJ. Had the accusing physician
filed a civil suit, MBC could have provided representation for
its witness. Unfortunately, MBC could not provide assistance
because current law does not provide for defense in this
situation.
Analysis Prepared by : Sarah Huchel / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301
FN: 0003892