White v. Medical Board of Cal. CA3, C092074

Background

James Gregory White surrendered his medical license under a settlement with the Medical Board of California.
After three years he submitted a petition for reinstatement but did not include the two physician/surgeon recommendation letters required by Business & Professions Code §2307(c); he instead filed a “Statement in Lieu of the Two-Letters Requirement.”
The Board declined to consider the petition as incomplete, returned it, and required submission of the two letters before processing.
White sued for a declaratory judgment seeking an excuse from the two-letter requirement, alleging compliance was impossible because no two physicians had personal knowledge of his post‑surrender activities.
The Board demurred, arguing White failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the suit was not ripe; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting White’s exhaustion, ripeness, constitutional, and impossibility claims and finding no amendment could cure the complaint.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	White said the Board’s return of the incomplete petition constituted exhaustion and refusal to consider his petition	Board said White never submitted a completed petition and thus did not complete administrative review	Court held White did not exhaust administrative remedies because he failed to submit a complete petition and receive a final agency decision
Ripeness	White argued the issue was ripe once Board returned his petition	Board argued no final agency action existed to review	Court held the claim was not ripe; underlying agency decision was not sufficiently definite for judicial review
Constitutionality of §2307(c)	White broadly claimed the statute is unconstitutional and he lacked opportunity to develop the claim	Board noted no constitutional argument was raised administratively and challenged the sufficiency of briefing	Court treated the constitutional challenge as forfeited for lack of argument and authority on appeal
Impossibility / impracticability to comply	White argued it was impossible for him to obtain two physicians with personal knowledge after surrendering his license	Board argued White neither alleged strict impossibility nor impracticability—only that he had not socialized with physicians	Court held White failed to allege strict impossibility or impracticability and thus was not excused from the statutory requirement
Leave to amend	White sought leave to amend or to be allowed to submit a completed petition	Board implicitly argued defects were incurable on the pleadings	Court found no reasonable possibility an amendment could cure the pleading defects and properly denied leave to amend

Key Cases Cited

Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co., 10 Cal. App. 5th 590 (tests sufficiency of complaint on demurrer)
AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. State Dept. of Health Care Services, 241 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (administrative exhaustion doctrine and policy)
Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal. 3d 158 (ripeness factors and hardship consideration)
California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 253 Cal. App. 2d 16 (ripeness—when agency action is sufficiently congealed)
Badie v. Bank of America, 67 Cal. App. 4th 779 (forfeiture of arguments not supported on appeal)
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. State, 5 Cal. 5th 428 (impossibility/impracticability can excuse statutory compliance in narrow circumstances)
Board of Supervisors v. McMahon, 219 Cal. App. 3d 286 (definition of impracticability under impossibility doctrine)
Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist., 33 Cal. App. 5th 502 (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)