Peer Review, Quality Assurance, and Disciplinary Process
What you must know
Complaints reach the Dental Board from patients, insurers, other licensees, and the Board's own investigations. Minor violations may result in a citation and fine with abatement and CE conditions; serious matters produce an accusation (or a statement of issues for a license applicant). The licensee may request a hearing before an administrative law judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings; the judge issues a proposed decision, the Board adopts, modifies, or rejects it, and the licensee may seek judicial review by writ in superior court. The standard of proof in California professional discipline is clear and convincing evidence. Penalties range from public reproval and probation with conditions to suspension and revocation; an interim suspension order may issue when the licensee poses an imminent danger.
Peer review is a separate professional-society process for quality-of-care and fee disputes. Peer review bodies have statutory immunity for good-faith actions, their proceedings are confidential, and they neither impose license discipline nor award money judgments. Participation should be honest and thorough; peer review records can be subpoenaed in later litigation in limited circumstances.
Traps
- Treating a citation as a license revocation, or thinking the Board can award damages to a patient.
- Confusing peer review with the Board's disciplinary process.
- Assuming the Board must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt (it must prove by clear and convincing evidence).
- Ignoring a Board inquiry; failure to respond is itself a violation.
Rule of thumb
Citation equals minor violation, fine, and corrective action. Accusation equals formal discipline on the license with hearing rights. Match the document described to the answer choice.