California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: To Executive

AB 1235 — Healing arts: peer review.

Last action — Vetoed by Governor.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined. This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances. This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes. Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate. This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations. Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome. This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified. This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Vetoed by Governor.

  2. Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:45 p.m.

  3. Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 6379.)

  4. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 6373.)

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 20 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 33. Noes 0. Page 4602.)

  7. Read second time. To third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (March 22).

  9. Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.

  10. (Page 2830.)

  11. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c).

  12. Read second time. To third reading.

  13. (Corrected February 24.)

  14. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  15. To second reading.

  16. From inactive file.

  17. To inactive file on motion of Senator Cedillo.

  18. Read second time. To third reading.

  19. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  20. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  21. From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (July 15).

  22. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  23. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  24. Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  25. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L. & I.R.

  27. Referred to Com. on L. & I.R.

  28. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  29. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 51. Noes 22. Page 1861.)

  30. Read second time. To third reading.

  31. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 4.) (May 28).

  32. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  33. Read second time. To third reading.

  34. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  35. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (May 13).

  36. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  37. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  38. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  39. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  40. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  41. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  42. Referred to Com. on L. & E.

  43. Read first time.

  44. From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.

  45. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Emmerson · Cosponsor
  • Hayashi · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Hayashi

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Emmerson

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 1235 HAYASHI Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 86 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 81004
Democratic 2001
Republican 3000
Total 86005
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Charles — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Harkey — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Bass — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Jeffries — Not Voting
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Norby — Not Voting
Ruskin — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Not Voting
Torres — Yea
Tran — Yea
Villines — Yea
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nava — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Silva — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Eng — Yea
Evans — Not Voting
Yamada — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Assembly 3rd Reading AB1235 Hayashi By Aanestad

Passed 34 Yea · 0 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 31005
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 34005
% of votes cast 87%0%0%13%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Florez — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Aanestad — Yea
Harman — Yea
Kehoe — Not Voting
Oropeza — Not Voting
Romero — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Corbett — Not Voting
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Democratic 0001
Total 9001
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Correa — Yea
Florez — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Walters — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8003
Republican 1000
Total 9003
% of votes cast 75%0%0%25%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Negrete — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Maldonado — Not Voting
McLeod — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Aanestad — Yea
Alquist — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Wolk — Not Voting
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1235 HAYASHI Assembly Third Reading

Passed 62 Yea · 22 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 582008
Republican 2100
Democratic 2100
Total 622208
% of votes cast 67%24%0%9%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Yamada — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Carter — Yea
Eng — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Bill — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fong — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Audra — Yea
Conway — Nay
Cook — Nay
Davis — Not Voting
Fuller — Not Voting
Gilmore — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Fletcher — Nay
Tom — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Anderson — Nay
Bass — Yea
Duvall — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Nay
Krekorian — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nava — Not Voting
Nestande — Nay
Price — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Tran — Nay
Adams — Nay
Beall — Yea
Blakeslee — Nay
Block — Not Voting
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Nay
Huber — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Lieu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Villines — Nay
Emmerson — Not Voting
Coto — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Evans — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Nay
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 17 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 16400
Democratic 1000
Republican 0100
Total 17500
% of votes cast 77%23%0%0%
How each member voted (22)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Audra — Nay
Duvall — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Krekorian — Yea
Miller — Yea
Price — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Davis — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5003
Total 5003
% of votes cast 63%0%0%38%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Eng — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bill — Not Voting
Berryhill — Not Voting
Gaines — Not Voting
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights healthcare labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1235 do?
Existing law provides for the professional review of specified healing arts licentiates through a peer review process conducted by peer review bodies, as defined. This bill would encourage a peer review body to obtain external peer review, as defined, for the evaluation or investigation of an applicant, privilegeholder, or member of the medical staff in specified circumstances. This bill would require a peer review body to respond to the request of another peer review body and produce the records reasonably requested concerning a licentiate under review, as specified. The bill would specify that the records produced pursuant to this provision are not subject to discovery, as specified, and may only be used for peer review purposes. Existing law requires the governing body of acute care hospitals to give great weight to the actions of peer review bodies and authorizes the governing body to direct the peer review body to investigate in specified instances. Where the peer review body fails to take action in response to that direction, existing law authorizes the governing body to take action against a licentiate. This bill would prohibit a member of a medical or professional staff from being required to alter or surrender staff privileges, status, or membership solely due to the termination of a contract between that member and a health care facility, except as specified. The bill would specify that a peer review body is entitled to review and make timely recommendations to the governing body of a health care facility, and its designee, if applicable, regarding quality considerations relating to clinical services when the selection, performance evaluation, or any change in the retention or replacement of licensees with whom the facility has a contract occurs. The bill would require the governing body to give great weight to those recommendations. Existing law provides various due process rights for licentiates who are the subject of a final proposed disciplinary action of a peer review body, including authorizing a licensee to request a hearing concerning that action. Under existing law, the hearing must be held before either an arbitrator selected by a process mutually acceptable to the licensee and the peer review body or a panel of unbiased individuals, as specified. Existing law prohibits a hearing officer presiding at a hearing held before a panel from, among other things, gaining direct financial benefit from the outcome. This bill would additionally require the hearing officer to be an attorney licensed in California, except as specified, and to disclose all actual and potential conflicts of interest, as specified. The bill would specify that the hearing officer is entitled to determine the procedure for presenting evidence and argument and would give the hearing officer authority to make all rulings pertaining to law, procedure, or the admissibility of evidence. The bill would authorize the hearing officer to recommend termination of the hearing in certain circumstances. Existing law requires the peer review body to adopt written provisions governing whether a licensee may be represented by an attorney and prohibits a peer review body from being represented by an attorney where a licensee is not so represented, except as specified. This bill would give both parties the right to be represented by an attorney but would prohibit a peer review body from being represented if the licensee notifies the peer review body within a specified period of time that he or she has elected to not be represented, except as specified.
Who sponsors AB 1235?
AB 1235 is sponsored by Emmerson and Hayashi.
What is the current status of AB 1235?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1235?
Track AB 1235 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1235

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1235

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →