WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 2141

Pharmacies: license discipline: stipulated settlement and disciplinary order.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Marc Berman and 1 co-sponsor

Allows pharmacists and the Board of Pharmacy to resolve disciplinary actions via a negotiated SSDO without initial agency filings, subject to written approval and public disclosure

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
#pharmacies #licensediscipline #stipulatedsettlementanddisciplinaryorder
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 2141

Overview

AB 2141 (2025-2026) would amend the California Business and Professions Code to authorize an alternative to traditional disciplinary proceedings for pharmacists: a stipulated settlement and disciplinary order (SSDO) that can be agreed to before the State Board of Pharmacy files an accusation or other agency pleading, under specified conditions. The bill aims to streamline and potentially expedite license discipline while ensuring due process through a written agreement approved by the board.

Purpose and intent

  • To authorize the board and a licensee to enter into an SSDO for license discipline without the initial filing of an agency pleading.
  • To balance efficiency with accountability by requiring verification of violations, mitigation/rehabilitation input, and board approval.
  • To address claims related to state procedures generally (the bill also notes the Legislature’s intent to address payment of claims against the state in later legislation).

Key provisions and changes

  • New Section 4300.2 added to the Business and Professions Code.
  • Conditions for SSDO without a filing:
    • Enforcement staff conducted a documented inspection/investigation substantiating violations.
    • Written findings and a notice of possible SSDO provided to the licensee.
    • The licensee signals willingness in writing, within 15 days (board may extend for good cause), to waive APA adjudicative procedures and consider an SSDO.
    • The licensee submits mitigation and rehabilitation information per the board’s disciplinary guidelines.
  • Role of the SSDO committee:
    • A committee (executive officer, two board members, one public member, one licensee member) reviews mitigation/rehabilitation information.
    • The committee may extend an SSDO offer.
    • An SSDO, detailing findings and terms, must be agreed to in writing within 60 days of the waiver; extensions possible for good cause or ongoing settlement discussions.
  • Contingent and public nature:
    • SSDO is contingent on board approval; committee members recuse themselves from voting on the SSDO.
    • If approved, the SSDO becomes a public record.
    • If not approved, the board may file the appropriate disciplinary pleading and take standard enforcement action.
  • Post-disposition:
    • The SSDO permits continued good-faith settlement discussions; procedures allow pursuing traditional actions if the SSDO process fails.
  • Section 1 note:
    • Expresses intent to enact subsequent legislation regarding payment of claims against the state.

Who is affected

  • Pharmacists licensed by the California State Board of Pharmacy.
  • The Board of Pharmacy, including its executive officer, enforcement staff, and board members (including public and licensee members who participate in the SSDO process).
  • The public, which would receive SSDOs as public records if approved.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Trigger: board investigation findings and the licensee’s written waiver of APA procedures.
  • Response window: licensee has 15 days (board can extend) to indicate willingness to waive APA procedures.
  • Documentation: licensee must provide mitigation/rehabilitation information per guidelines.
  • SSDO timeline: 60 days to execute a written SSDO after waiver; extensions allowed for good cause or ongoing settlement talks.
  • Contingency: SSDO requires board approval; otherwise, standard disciplinary pleading follows.

Potential impact

  • Pros: Faster resolution of certain disciplinary matters; more alternatives to full APA-adjudicated hearings; incorporation of mitigation and rehabilitation considerations.
  • Cons: Increased need for careful governance to prevent improper use; transparency and public record implications due to SSDO becoming a public record if approved.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.