If a licentiate timely requests a hearing concerning a final
proposed action for which a report is required to be filed under
Section 805, the following shall apply:
   (a) The hearing shall be held, as determined by the peer review
body, before a trier of fact, which shall be an arbitrator or
arbitrators selected by a process mutually acceptable to the
licentiate and the peer review body, or before a panel of unbiased
individuals who shall gain no direct financial benefit from the
outcome, who have not acted as an accuser, investigator, factfinder,
or initial decisionmaker in the same matter, and which shall include,
where feasible, an individual practicing the same specialty as the
licentiate.
   (b) If a hearing officer is selected to preside at a hearing held
before a panel, the hearing officer shall gain no direct financial
benefit from the outcome, shall not act as a prosecuting officer or
advocate, and shall not be entitled to vote.
   (c) The licentiate shall have the right to a reasonable
opportunity to voir dire the panel members and any hearing officer,
and the right to challenge the impartiality of any member or hearing
officer.  Challenges to the impartiality of any member or hearing
officer shall be ruled on by the presiding officer, who shall be the
hearing officer if one has been selected.
   (d) The licentiate shall have the right to inspect and copy at the
licentiate's expense any documentary information relevant to the
charges which the peer review body has in its possession or under its
control, as soon as practicable after the receipt of the licentiate'
s request for a hearing.  The peer review body shall have the right
to inspect and copy at the peer review body's expense any documentary
information relevant to the charges which the licentiate has in his
or her possession or control as soon as practicable after receipt of
the peer review body's request.  The failure by either party to
provide access to this information at least 30 days before the
hearing shall constitute good cause for a continuance.  The right to
inspect and copy by either party does not extend to confidential
information referring solely to individually identifiable
licentiates, other than the licentiate under review.  The arbitrator
or presiding officer shall consider and rule upon any request for
access to information, and may impose any safeguards the protection
of the peer review process and justice requires.
   (e) When ruling upon requests for access to information and
determining the relevancy thereof, the arbitrator or presiding
officer shall, among other factors, consider the following:
   (1) Whether the information sought may be introduced to support or
defend the charges.
   (2) The exculpatory or inculpatory nature of the information
sought, if any.
   (3) The burden imposed on the party in possession of the
information sought, if access is granted.
   (4) Any previous requests for access to information submitted or
resisted by the parties to the same proceeding.
   (f) At the request of either side, the parties shall exchange
lists of witnesses expected to testify and copies of all documents
expected to be introduced at the hearing.  Failure to disclose the
identity of a witness or produce copies of all documents expected to
be produced at least 10 days before the commencement  of the hearing
shall constitute good cause for a continuance.
   (g) Continuances shall be granted upon agreement of the parties or
by the arbitrator or presiding officer on a showing of good cause.
   (h) A hearing under this section shall be commenced within 60 days
after receipt of the request for hearing, and the peer review
process shall be completed within a reasonable time, after a
licentiate receives notice of a final proposed action or an immediate
suspension or restriction of clinical privileges, unless the
arbitrator or presiding officer issues a written decision finding
that the licentiate failed to comply with subdivisions (d) and (e) in
a timely manner, or consented to the delay.

Section: Previous 806 807 808 808.5 809 809.05 809.1 809.2 809.3 809.4 809.5 809.6 809.7 809.8 809.9 Next

California Lawyers

Bostwick & Associates San Francisco Injury Lawyer.
Stephen Brodsky San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney.
Carpenter & Zuckerman Los Angeles Injury Lawyer.
Michelle Gee Palo Alto Immigration Lawyer.
Stephen T. Hodge Elk Grove Estate Planning Lawyer.
Bethani Jackson San Mateo Criminal Defense Lawyer.
Nicholas C. Rowley California Injury Lawyer.
Thomas G. Lewellyn Oakland Injury Lawyer.
Tilden Moschetti San Francisco Divorce Lawyer.
Jeremy Ofseyer Palm Springs Estate Planning Lawyer.
Larry H. Parker Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer.
Carey Pickford Temecula Estate Planning Lawyer.
Scott Righthand San Francisco Personal Injury Lawyer.
Scott Sagaria San Jose Family Lawyer.
Edward A. Smith Sacramento Auto Accident Lawyer.
Weiss LLP San Mateo Business Lawyer.
Clarke Logan Young Los Angeles Divorce Lawyer.

Last modified: July 31, 2008