California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB505

Introduced
2/13/17  
Refer
2/27/17  
Refer
2/27/17  
Report Pass
3/27/17  
Refer
3/28/17  
Refer
3/28/17  
Report Pass
4/26/17  
Report Pass
4/26/17  
Refer
4/26/17  
Refer
4/26/17  
Refer
5/3/17  
Refer
5/3/17  
Report Pass
5/26/17  
Engrossed
5/31/17  
Engrossed
5/31/17  
Refer
6/1/17  
Refer
6/14/17  
Refer
6/14/17  
Report Pass
6/20/18  
Report Pass
6/20/18  
Refer
6/20/18  
Refer
6/20/18  
Report Pass
6/27/18  
Report Pass
6/27/18  
Refer
8/23/18  
Refer
8/23/18  
Enrolled
8/29/18  
Enrolled
8/29/18  
Chaptered
9/18/18  
Chaptered
9/18/18  

Caption

Medical Board of California: adjudication: expert testimony.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 505, introduced by Assemblymember Caballero, amends Section 2334 of the Business and Professions Code regarding the use of expert testimony in proceedings brought by the Medical Board of California. The bill modifies existing regulations concerning the exchange of information between parties, aiming to enhance procedural efficiency in adjudications. Notably, AB 505 allows administrative law judges to extend the deadline for information exchange beyond the existing limitation of 30 calendar days, provided a good cause is shown, for a maximum cumulative extension of 100 days. The impact of this bill is significant as it alters the prerequisites for expert testimony in medical board proceedings. Under the current law, expert testimony could not be admitted unless specified information was exchanged at least 30 days prior to a hearing. The amendment provides greater flexibility, potentially improving access to expert testimony for both parties involved in medical adjudications, thus fostering a fairer legal process. The sentiment surrounding AB 505 appears to be predominantly positive among legislators, as evidenced by a concurrence vote of 78-0. Proponents argue that this bill addresses practical concerns that arise in the realm of medical board hearings, helping streamline processes that can otherwise stall due to rigid timelines. By permitting judges the discretion to extend deadlines, the bill supports thorough preparation and comprehensive presentation of expert opinions. However, concerns regarding the potential for abuse or delay also accompanied discussions on AB 505. Critics urge that extended timelines should not compromise the expediency of adjudications or allow for unnecessary postponements. Nonetheless, the overarching view is that the bill serves to balance the rights of parties involved while still maintaining the integrity of the administrative process, paving the way for more equitable outcomes.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA SB40

State Bar of California.

CA SB815

Healing arts.

CA AB2688

Medical Board of California: appointments: removal.

CA AB1505

California Earthquake Authority: closed meetings.

CA AB3279

State Bar of California.

CA AB389

Native American repatriation: California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001: California State University.

CA AB1257

Dentistry: Dental Hygiene Board of California: Dental hygienists: Examinations and licensure.

CA AB2194

Physician assistants: supervision: doctors of podiatric medicine.

CA AB779

Groundwater: adjudication.

CA SB887

Consumer affairs.

Similar Bills

CA AB1357

Department of Toxic Substances Control: public meetings.

CA AB2706

California Environmental Quality Act: record of proceedings.

CA SB811

Public safety: omnibus.

CA AB1189

Court reporting: digital reporters and legal transcriptionists.

CA AB1149

California Environmental Quality Act: record of proceedings.

CA AB2559

California Financing Law: enforcement and penalties.

CA SB460

Joint Sunset Review Committee.

CA SB1155

Court interpreters: small claims proceedings.