California RN/NP/PA supervision violations, unlicensed practice, physician misrepresentation, Medical Board reporting, and regulatory leverage
California law strictly regulates who may perform medical procedures and under what supervision. When med-spas, aesthetic clinics, IV therapy lounges, or medical co-working tenants misrepresent their supervising physician, operate without proper oversight, or exceed the scope of practice for RNs, NPs, or PAs, they create serious legal and patient-safety risks.
For landlords, medical facility operators, and practice owners hosting such tenants, these violations expose you to liability, regulatory action, and reputational harm. When you discover supervision failures or credential misrepresentations, you have legal remedies—but demand letters must be carefully crafted to avoid extortion claims while preserving regulatory reporting rights.
| Violation Type | Common Fact Patterns | Primary Legal Framework |
|---|---|---|
| Unlicensed Practice | RN injecting Botox/fillers with no supervising MD; esthetician operating laser; unlicensed "injector" performing medical procedures | B&P § 2052 (unlicensed practice), § 2053 (aiding/abetting), Criminal liability under B&P § 2053 |
| Misrepresentation of Medical Director | Website lists Dr. X as medical director after resignation; intake forms bear Dr. X's signature stamp; business cards show terminated physician | B&P § 17500 (false advertising), § 2261 (false statements re: license), § 2262 (false name/impersonation) |
| Inadequate Supervision | NP lacks required "standardized procedure" document; PA supervision agreement expired; RN protocols not signed by physician | CCR Title 16 §§ 1379 (RN), 1399.540-.546 (NP), 1399.530-.540 (PA); B&P § 2725 (RN scope) |
| Scope-of-Practice Violations | RN prescribing medications; NP performing procedures outside standardized procedures; PA exceeding delegation agreement scope | B&P §§ 2725-2727 (RN), §§ 2834-2837 (NP scope), §§ 2052, 2070-2071 (physician responsibility) |
| Corporate Practice of Medicine | Non-physician owner directing medical decisions; med-spa LLC owned by esthetician employing MD; practice management agreement = de facto ownership | B&P § 2400 (CPOM prohibition); People v. Pacific Health Corp. case law; Medical Board enforcement actions |
| Insurance Misrepresentation | Tenant claims malpractice insurance but policy lapsed; claims supervising MD covered under policy but MD not endorsed; claims facility GLI applies to medical procedures | Contract fraud (Civ. Code § 1572); premises liability exposure (Civ. Code § 1714) |
Premises Liability Risk: If you lease space to a med-spa or aesthetic clinic that injures patients due to unlicensed practice or inadequate supervision, you may face liability under California's premises liability doctrine. Courts have held that landlords with knowledge of unlicensed medical activity have a duty to prevent patient harm.
Regulatory Exposure: The Medical Board of California investigates facilities that house unlicensed practitioners. Receiving a Board subpoena, being named in disciplinary actions, or having your facility publicized in enforcement proceedings damages reputation and property value.
B&P § 2052 – Unlicensed Practice of Medicine: It is a crime and civil violation for any person not licensed as a physician to practice medicine or surgery, or to hold themselves out as able to do so. "Practice of medicine" includes diagnosing, treating, prescribing, and performing procedures requiring medical training.
B&P § 2053 – Aiding & Abetting Unlicensed Practice: Physicians who aid or abet unlicensed practice (e.g., by lending their name/credentials without supervision) face license discipline and criminal penalties.
B&P §§ 2070-2071 – Physician Responsibility for Supervision: Physicians who delegate medical tasks to RNs, NPs, or PAs remain legally responsible for supervising those individuals. Failure to supervise = license discipline.
B&P § 650 – Division of Fees / Kickbacks: Paying or receiving compensation for patient referrals is illegal in California. Med-spa arrangements where physicians receive fees for "lending their name" without actual supervision violate § 650.
CCR Title 16, § 1379 – Standardized Procedures for RNs: RNs may perform medical functions (e.g., injections, IV therapy, laser treatments) only under written "standardized procedures" developed by a physician and nurse, approved by the facility, and documented in policies. The physician must provide supervision, training, and periodic evaluation.
B&P §§ 2725-2727 – Scope of RN Practice: RNs may not diagnose, prescribe medications (except under specific furnishing protocols with additional certification), or perform procedures outside standardized procedures.
CCR Title 16, §§ 1399.540-1399.546 – NP Standardized Procedures & Furnishing: NPs have broader scope than RNs but still require physician collaboration. NPs must operate under "standardized procedures" approved by a physician and facility. NPs with furnishing authority may prescribe medications within their scope, but the standardized procedures must define what conditions they may treat.
Supervision vs. Collaboration: California uses "standardized procedures" rather than "supervision" for NPs, but the physician retains ultimate responsibility. If an NP performs aesthetic procedures (Botox, fillers), the standardized procedures must authorize those specific tasks.
CCR Title 16, §§ 1399.530-1399.540 – PA Delegation & Supervision Agreements: PAs work under a written "delegation agreement" with a supervising physician. The agreement must specify:
If the supervising physician terminates the agreement, the PA must cease practice until a new supervising physician is secured.
B&P § 2261 – False Statements Regarding Medical License: Making false statements about holding a medical license or about the status of a license is a misdemeanor.
B&P § 2262 – False Name or Impersonation: Using another person's name or credentials to practice medicine or represent oneself as qualified is a misdemeanor.
B&P § 17500 – False Advertising: Advertising a supervising physician who is no longer affiliated, or misrepresenting the qualifications of practitioners, constitutes false advertising and is actionable by the Attorney General, district attorney, or private parties.
| Agency | Jurisdiction | Enforcement Powers |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Board of California (MBC) | Physicians (MD/DO); unlicensed practice investigations; supervision failures | License discipline (suspension, revocation, probation); civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation; criminal referral to DA |
| Board of Registered Nursing (BRN) | RNs, NPs; scope violations; standardized procedure compliance | License discipline; citations with fines up to $2,500 per violation; mandatory education; practice restrictions |
| Physician Assistant Board (PAB) | PAs; delegation agreement compliance; scope violations | License discipline; fines; practice restrictions; supervision audits |
| CA Attorney General / District Attorney | False advertising (B&P § 17500); consumer fraud; criminal unlicensed practice | Injunctions; civil penalties; criminal prosecution; restitution orders |
Fact Pattern: Your med-spa tenant prominently displays "Dr. Jane Smith, Medical Director" on their website, intake forms, and signage. You discover Dr. Smith terminated her relationship with the tenant six months ago. The tenant's RNs continue performing Botox and filler injections, representing that Dr. Smith supervises their work.
Legal Issues:
Evidence to Collect:
Fact Pattern: Your tenant operates an IV therapy lounge. RNs are inserting IVs and administering vitamin infusions. You request copies of the required standardized procedures and supervising physician documentation. Tenant provides a one-page form with a physician's signature but no detailed protocols, training requirements, or emergency procedures.
Legal Issues:
Compliance Requirements: Proper standardized procedures must include:
Fact Pattern: Your tenant is a limited liability company owned by a non-physician esthetician. The LLC employs a physician as "medical director," but the esthetician owner makes all business decisions, sets treatment protocols, determines pricing, and hires/fires clinical staff. The physician is paid a flat monthly fee and rarely visits the facility.
Legal Issues:
Red Flags for CPOM:
Fact Pattern: Your tenant's RNs are performing microneedling with platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a procedure that involves drawing blood, centrifuging to concentrate platelets, and injecting PRP into the skin. There is no physician on-site, and the "supervising physician" visits once per quarter.
Legal Issues:
For these procedures, standardized procedures must require on-site physician supervision or immediate availability (within 5-10 minutes), not quarterly visits.
Date: [Current Date]
To: [Tenant Name / Business Entity]
[Tenant Address]
Attn: [Owner/Principal]
From: [Your Name / Facility Name]
[Your Address]
[Phone and Email]
RE: NOTICE OF LEASE BREACH – MISREPRESENTATION OF MEDICAL DIRECTOR & UNLICENSED PRACTICE
Dear [Tenant Name]:
This letter provides notice of material breaches of your lease agreement dated [Lease Date] for premises located at [Address] and documents our concerns regarding unlicensed medical practice occurring in our facility.
Background: Section [X] of the Lease requires you to maintain all licenses and permits necessary to operate your med-spa business and to operate in compliance with California law. Section [Y] requires you to provide proof of a supervising physician and malpractice insurance upon request.
Breach #1: Misrepresentation of Supervising Physician
Your business website, intake forms, and signage prominently identify "Jane Smith, M.D." as your Medical Director. On [Date], we requested documentation of Dr. Smith's current supervision agreement. You failed to provide responsive documents.
We subsequently contacted Dr. Smith directly. She confirmed in writing (attached) that she terminated her supervisory relationship with your business effective [Termination Date], approximately six months ago. Despite this termination, your business continues to:
These representations are false and constitute:
Breach #2: Unlicensed Practice of Medicine
According to your own marketing materials, your RNs perform Botox injections, dermal filler treatments, and laser procedures. California law (CCR Title 16, § 1379) permits RNs to perform such procedures only under written standardized procedures created and supervised by a licensed physician.
With Dr. Smith's termination, you have no supervising physician. Therefore, your RNs are performing medical procedures without lawful supervision, in violation of Business & Professions Code § 2052 (unlicensed practice of medicine).
Facility Liability & Regulatory Risk: We are deeply concerned that unlicensed medical practice is occurring in our facility. This exposes us to:
REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (within 10 days):
Consequences of Non-Compliance: If you fail to complete the corrective actions within 10 days, we will pursue the following remedies:
We take no pleasure in this matter, but patient safety and legal compliance are non-negotiable. We are prepared to work with you if you demonstrate immediate, good-faith efforts to comply. Contact me within 3 business days to discuss your corrective action plan.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Title]
Enclosures: Dr. Smith's termination letter; Medical Board license verification; Lease Sections [X, Y]
Date: [Current Date]
To: [Tenant Name / IV Therapy Business]
[Tenant Address]
From: [Facility Owner]
[Address]
RE: NOTICE OF LEASE BREACH – INADEQUATE STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES & PATIENT SAFETY CONCERNS
Dear [Tenant]:
I write to notify you of serious compliance deficiencies regarding your IV therapy operations in our facility and to demand immediate corrective action.
Background: On [Date], I requested documentation of your RNs' standardized procedures for IV therapy, as required by California Code of Regulations, Title 16, § 1379. You provided a one-page document titled "IV Therapy Protocol" with a physician signature but no substantive protocols.
I forwarded your document to legal counsel for review. Counsel advised that the document is facially non-compliant with California law and does not meet the regulatory definition of "standardized procedures."
Deficiencies in Your Standardized Procedures:
These deficiencies render your procedures legally insufficient. Under California law, RNs may not perform IV therapy without compliant standardized procedures. Your current operations constitute unlicensed practice.
Patient Safety Concerns: We observed the following during a recent walk-through:
These observations raise serious patient-safety concerns and expose our facility to liability.
IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REQUIRED (within 15 days):
Consequences of Non-Compliance: Failure to complete these corrective actions will result in:
This is a serious matter. I am not making threats; I am documenting compliance failures and our facility's liability exposure. I encourage you to engage qualified legal and compliance professionals immediately.
Please contact me within 5 business days to acknowledge receipt and outline your corrective action plan.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
cc: [Facility Legal Counsel]
California Penal Code § 518 defines extortion as obtaining property or compelling someone to act through threats. When drafting demand letters for medical supervision failures, the line between lawful leverage and unlawful extortion is razor-thin.
| ALLOWED ✓ | PROHIBITED ✗ |
|---|---|
| "We may have a legal obligation to report patient-safety risks to the Medical Board if the unlicensed practice continues." | "Pay us $50,000 or we will report you to the Medical Board." |
| "Medical Boulevard will evaluate submitting complaints to the Board of Registered Nursing should the supervision failures remain uncorrected." | "If you don't settle this within 48 hours, we're filing a Board complaint." |
| "We are consulting with counsel regarding our duty to report unlicensed practice to appropriate regulatory authorities." | "We've drafted a detailed Board complaint. Wire the money and we'll destroy it." |
| "Failure to cure this breach may compel us to notify regulators to protect future patients." | "We'll keep this between us if you pay the settlement amount." |
| "Your misrepresentation of Dr. X as medical director violates B&P § 17500, which is a reportable violation." | "Unless we reach a financial resolution, we're reporting your fraud to the Attorney General." |
1. Factual Statements Are Safe: Describing what violations you've observed and citing statutes is permissible. Example: "Your RNs are performing Botox without a supervising physician, in violation of B&P § 2052."
2. Legal Rights Statements Are Safe: Stating that you have a right or obligation to report is permissible. Example: "As facility operators, we may have a duty to report patient-safety risks to regulators."
3. Conditional Statements Are Risky: "If X, then Y" phrasing can be extortion if it links payment to silence. Safe: "If violations continue, we will report." Unsafe: "If you pay us, we won't report."
4. Focus on Compliance, Not Payment: Frame demands around corrective actions (cease operations, obtain supervision, provide documentation) rather than money. If damages are owed, present them as a separate calculation, not as "hush money."
5. Never Guarantee Silence: Do not promise to refrain from reporting in exchange for payment. Even implied agreements ("We'll resolve this privately if you cooperate financially") can be extortion.
Medical Board of California (MBC):
Board of Registered Nursing (BRN):
Attorney General's Office (for false advertising):
Medical supervision failures create complex legal issues at the intersection of healthcare licensing, commercial landlord-tenant law, premises liability, and regulatory enforcement. Whether you're a landlord, medical facility operator, or practice owner dealing with a tenant's unlicensed practice or misrepresentation of physicians, these disputes require careful legal navigation to protect your interests without triggering extortion claims.
I represent California landlords, medical facilities, and practice owners in disputes involving med-spa tenants, aesthetic clinics, IV therapy lounges, and other healthcare co-working arrangements. My practice focuses on compliance enforcement, lease breach litigation, regulatory reporting strategy, and premises liability defense.
Med-spa and aesthetic clinic tenants often have sophisticated legal teams and argue that supervision failures are "technical violations" or that landlords lack standing to enforce healthcare regulations. An attorney levels the playing field by:
| Client Type | Typical Issue | Services Provided |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial landlord | Med-spa tenant misrepresenting supervising physician; unlicensed RN injections; premises liability concerns | Demand letter → lease termination → unlawful detainer → Medical Board complaint |
| Medical facility owner | Co-working tenant (NP) operating outside standardized procedures; inadequate supervision; OSHA violations | Compliance audit → corrective action plan → regulatory reporting if non-compliance |
| Physician practice owner | Former employee using physician's name on marketing materials after termination; false representation as "medical director" | Cease-and-desist → injunction → false advertising complaint to AG → damages for reputational harm |
| Medical landlord (physician-owned) | Aesthetic tenant creating CPOM exposure; physician-landlord at risk of MBC discipline for "aiding and abetting" unlicensed practice | Immediate lease termination strategy → MBC compliance consultation → defensive reporting to protect landlord's license |
Don't let a tenant's unlicensed practice or supervision failures expose you to liability, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational harm. I have successfully resolved dozens of medical supervision disputes for landlords and facility operators, achieving lease terminations, regulatory enforcement, and damages recovery.
Send me your lease agreement, tenant's business materials (website, intake forms), and any documentation you've obtained (or failed to obtain) regarding supervision and licensing. I'll evaluate your liability exposure and outline a compliance enforcement strategy.
Hourly and flat-fee arrangements available. Regulatory compliance audits often flat-fee ($2,500-$5,000). Litigation on contingency or hourly depending on case complexity. Attorney's fees may be recoverable under lease or fraud statutes.