If someone files a complaint against a healthcare professional licensed by certain boards, including the Board of Podiatric Medicine, and that professional is facing formal disciplinary action, the complainant must be informed about the proposed actions against the professional. This notification is only for complainants the boards know about. Complainants can also provide a statement to the assigned deputy attorney general. However, these statements won't be used to decide the case, but might help in forming future policies or standards after the case is resolved.

This law allows the Division of Medical Quality and the Health Quality Enforcement Section in California to hire experts, or set up volunteer panels, to help with their duties. They can use experts for things like giving testimony and monitoring doctors under probation. There are also rules for creating volunteer panels of physicians to help with tasks such as monitoring disciplined doctors, evaluating competency exams, and advising on policies. All references to a medical quality review committee are now directed to a panel in the Division of Medical Quality since 1994.

This law sets the rules for using expert testimony in cases brought by the Medical Board of California. Both parties must share specific information in writing about any experts they plan to use, like the expert's qualifications, a detailed report of their opinions, and their fees. This information has to be exchanged at least 90 days before the hearing starts, or as adjusted by a judge, but never less than 30 days before. The Office of Administrative Hearings is allowed to create regulations for how this information exchange should happen.

This law explains how decisions and orders from the Medical Quality Hearing Panel regarding medical board licensees are handled. Proposed decisions must be sent to the board's executive director within 48 hours. Interim orders become final right away. The board, or its panels, must follow specific rules when considering these decisions, giving strong consideration to the facts as judged by the administrative law judge unless new evidence arises. Additionally, the board's staff must quickly poll members about the proposed decision through a mail ballot, and members who have a conflict of interest cannot discuss the matter with board members. The board may adopt, change, defer, or refuse the decision within specific timeframes, with discussions happening if necessary before a set deadline. Finally, parties can present arguments if the administrative judge's decision is not adopted, and the board needs a majority vote to increase penalties after thoroughly reviewing the case information.

This law requires the Division of Medical Quality and the California Board of Podiatric Medicine to create rules about how oral arguments should be conducted when a proposed decision is not adopted. These rules must ensure that the discussion stays within the limits of the evidence that has already been officially accepted.

This law states that if a license is revoked, suspended, or restricted, any court review of this decision should be prioritized over other civil cases. The hearing or trial must be scheduled no later than 180 days after the action is filed, and delays will only be allowed if there's a very good reason. If the outcome of this court review needs further examination, it must be done through a special legal request called an extraordinary writ.