ordered by the board, including those made part of a probationary order or stipulated agreement.
amount of a claim or action for damages for death or personal injury caused by the licensee’s negligence, error, or omission in practice, or by rendering unauthorized professional services.
behalf of the licensee also alleged a products liability class action cause of action. All settlements in the possession, custody, or control of the board shall be disclosed for a licensee in the high-risk category if there are four or more settlements for that licensee within the last 10 years except for settlements by a licensee regardless of the amount paid where (i) the settlement is made as a part of the settlement of a class claim, (ii) the licensee paid in settlement of the class claim the same amount as the other licensees in the same class or similarly situated licensees in the same class, and (iii) the settlement was paid in the context of a case where the complaint that alleged class liability on behalf of the licensee also alleged a products liability class action cause of action. Classification of a licensee in either a “high-risk category” or a “low-risk category” depends upon the
specialty or subspecialty practiced by the licensee and the designation assigned to that specialty or subspecialty by the Medical Board of California, as described in subdivision (f). For the purposes of this paragraph, “settlement” means a settlement of an action described in paragraph (1) entered into by the licensee on or after January 1, 2003, in an amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) or more.
(ii) Reporting the number of years the licensee has been in practice.
(iii) Reporting the total number of licensees in that specialty or subspecialty, the number of those who have entered into a settlement agreement, and the percentage that number represents of the total number of licensees in the specialty or subspecialty.
the license of a licensee. By January 1, 2004, the Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, and the California Board of Podiatric Medicine shall adopt regulations defining the status of a licensee. The board shall employ this definition when disclosing the status of a licensee pursuant to Section 2027.
purposes of this paragraph, “peer review” has the same meaning as defined in Section 805.
the public because that information is unreliable or not sufficiently related to the licensee’s professional practice. The Medical Board of California, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, and the Physician Assistant Board shall include the following statement when disclosing information concerning a settlement:
“Some studies have shown that there is no significant correlation between malpractice history and a licensee’s competence. At the same time, the State of California believes that consumers should have access to malpractice information. In these profiles, the State of California has given you information about both the malpractice settlement history for the licensee’s specialty and the licensee’s history of settlement payments only if in
the last 10 years, the licensee, if in a low-risk specialty, has three or more settlements or the licensee, if in a high-risk specialty, has four or more settlements. The State of California has excluded some class action lawsuits because those cases are commonly related to systems issues such as product liability, rather than questions of individual professional competence and because they are brought on a class basis where the economic incentive for settlement is great. The State of California has placed payment amounts into three statistical categories: below average, average, and above average compared to others in the licensee’s specialty. To make the best health care decisions, you should view this information in perspective. You could miss an opportunity for high-quality care by selecting a licensee based solely on malpractice history.
When considering
malpractice data, please keep in mind:
Malpractice histories tend to vary by specialty. Some specialties are more likely than others to be the subject of litigation. This report compares licensees only to the members of their specialty, not to all licensees, in order to make an individual licensee’s history more meaningful.
This report reflects data only for settlements made on or after January 1, 2003. Moreover, it includes information concerning those settlements for a 10-year period only. Therefore, you should know that a licensee may have made settlements in the 10 years immediately preceding January 1, 2003, that are not included in this report. After January 1, 2013, for licensees practicing less than 10 years, the data covers their total years of practice. You should take into account the effective date of
settlement disclosure as well as how long the licensee has been in practice when considering
malpractice averages.
The incident causing the malpractice claim may have happened years before a payment is finally made. Sometimes, it takes a long time for a malpractice lawsuit to settle. Some licensees work primarily with high-risk patients. These licensees may have malpractice settlement histories that are higher than average because they specialize in cases or patients who are at very high risk for problems.
Settlement of a claim may occur for a variety of reasons that do not necessarily reflect negatively on the professional competence or conduct of the licensee. A payment in settlement of a medical malpractice action or claim should not be construed as creating a presumption that medical malpractice has occurred.
You may wish to discuss information in
this report and the
general issue of malpractice with the licensee.”
a sanction unless the licensee has been the subject of one of the actions described in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (a).
carriers, self-insurers, and specialty representatives.
subdivision (b), the specialty or subspecialty information required by this section shall group licensees by specialty board recognized pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 651 unless a different grouping would be more valid and the board, in its statement of reasons for its regulations, explains why the validity of the grouping would be more valid.
Cite this section