Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 23STCP01576, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Bahman Tazangi Edalati (“Edalati”) petitions the court for administrative mandamus to set aside the decision of Respondent Dental Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs of the State of California (“Board”) denying reinstatement of his dental license.

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Petitioner Edalati commenced this proceeding on May 9, 2023, alleging a cause of action for administrative mandamus. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Edalati was licensed to practice dentistry in California until the voluntary surrender of his license in October 2012. On March 4, 2021, he filed his third petition for reinstatement of his license. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ") heard the petition on April 6 and 7, 2022. On July 18, she issued a proposed decision denying the petition. On August 12, 2022, the Board adopted the proposed decision with minor corrections, effective September 12, 2022.

On September 9, 2022, the Board received Edalati’s petition for reconsideration and request for a ten-day stay on the deadline for review of such a petition. On September 20, 2022, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration and vacated the adopted decision. The Board remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) solely to receive more evidence and argument on the validity of the continuing education completion certificates Edalati had submitted.

The ALJ heard the remanded matter on February 8, 2023. On March 10, 2023, she issued a proposed decision again denying the petition. The Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision on April 12, 2023, effective May 12, 2023. Edalati filed a petition for reconsideration on April 19, which the Board denied on May 2, 2023.

Edalati seeks a writ of administrative mandate compelling the Board to set aside the decision, grant reinstatement of his dental license, and reimburse his costs.

CCP section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by administrative agencies. Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15.

CCP section 1094.5 does not in its face specify which cases are subject to independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999)20 Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143. See CCP §1094.5(c). An agency decision on an application for reinstatement of a revoked license does not involve a fundamental, vested right and the substantial evidence standard of review applies. Flanzer v. Board of Dental Examiners, (“Flanzer”) (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1392, 1396.

“Substantial evidence” is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board, (“California Youth Authority”) (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 585) or evidence of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. Mohilef v. Janovici, (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 305, n.28. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the agency’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Young v. Gannon, (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 225. The trial court considers all evidence in the administrative record, including evidence that detracts from evidence supporting the agency’s decision. California Youth Authority, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at 585.

The agency’s decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing. Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court, (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862. The hearing officer is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision. Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 514-15. Implicit in section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. Topanga, 11 Cal.3d at 515.

An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Ev. Code §664), and the petitioner therefore has the burden of proof. Steele v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137. “[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of discretion. Afford v. Pierno, (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.

In considering reinstatement or modification or penalty, the board or the ALJ hearing the petition may consider (1) all activities of the petitioner since the disciplinary action was taken, (2) the offense for which the petitioner was disciplined, (3) the petitioner's activities during the time the license, certificate, or permit was in good standing, and (4) the petitioner's rehabilitative efforts, general reputation for truth, and professional ability. Business & Professions Code[1] §1686. In disciplinary determinations, protection and safety of the public is paramount. §1601.2.

Criteria for evaluating rehabilitation include: (1) the nature and severity of the acts or offenses; (2) total criminal record; (3) the time that has elapsed since commission of the acts or offenses; (4) whether the petitioner has complied with any terms of parole, probation, restitution, or any other sanctions lawfully imposed against them; (5) if applicable, evidence of expungement proceedings; and (6) evidence, if any, of rehabilitation submitted by petitioner. 16 CCR §1020(c), (d).

In a proceeding for restoration of a revoked license, the burden at all times rests on the petitioner to prove that he is rehabilitated and entitled to have his license restored; the burden is not on the board to prove to the contrary. Flanzer, supra, Cal.App.3d at 1398. To meet this burden, a petitioner must prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence to a reasonable certainty. Housman v. Board of Medical Examiners, (1948) 84 Cal.App.2d 308, 315. The more serious the misconduct and the bad character evidence, the stronger the applicant’s showing of rehabilitation must be. In re Gossage, (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1080, 1098. Mere remorse does not demonstrate rehabilitation and a truer indication of rehabilitation is presented when an application for readmission to a professional practice can be demonstrated by sustained conduct over an extended period of time that he or she is once again fit to practice. In re Menna, (1995) 11 Cal.4th 975, 991.

Edalati received his dental degree from Temple University in 1999. AR 1090. On October 30, 2000, the Board issued him Dental License No. 48103. AR 120.

In 2008, Edalati and his family moved to Manitoba, Canada to be closer to his wife’s family. AR 1097-1101. In 2008, the Manitoba Dental Association (“MDA”), Manitobay’s regulatory body for dentists and dental specialists, issued Edalati a general practitioner dental license. AR 289-90.

In July 2012, the Board filed an Accusation against Edalati. A Second Amended Accusation (“SAA”) alleged gross negligence, repeated acts of negligence, incompetence, billing for services not delivered, and recordkeeping violations. AR 245, 247-48.

The SAA alleged that Edalati had offered and tried to perform root canal therapy on Patient CK. AR 246. Edalati failed to inform CK of the risks of the procedure or to perform proper examination, testing, and imaging of the tooth in question. AR 247-48. The SAA further alleged that Edalati perforated CK’s tooth during the root canal therapy. AR 248. This perforation was substantially larger than the acceptable range of risks of the procedure. AR 248. He failed to inform CK of the damage or the potential for future complications stemming from it. AR 248. Edalati failed to refer CK to an endodontic specialist. AR 247. He instead built the tooth up for a crown and appointed CK for the delivery of one. AR 247. The SAA further alleged Edalati submitted a claim to CK’s dental plan for placement of a post in the tooth and fusing porcelain to the metal crown. AR 247. He obtained a $973 copayment from CK for this work, which Edalati never performed. AR 247.

In July 2012, Edalati stipulated to the truth of every charge and allegation in the SAA. AR 237, 239, 242. Cause for discipline therefore existed, and he surrendered his license. AR 239. The stipulation became effective on October 22, 2012. AR 236.

According to an affidavit submitted by Dr. Patricia Ling (“Ling”), then MDA’s deputy registrar, in 2013, the MDA learned about Edalati’s surrender of his California license in 2013. AR 419, 422. As a result, MDA had concerns about Edalati's competence. AR 423. On April 15, 2014, Edalati signed a written undertaking agreeing to not perform endodontic therapy until and unless the MDA Complaints Committee finished its investigation and recommended that he may perform such therapy. AR 423.

The MDA Complaints Committee never removed the restriction from Edalati’s MDA license or told him that it had done so. AR 423-24. However, his revised paper certificate effective March 1, 2015 inadvertently stated that the restriction ended on February 28, 2015, the end of the licensing year. AR 424. The error was not noticed by MDA until 2017. AR 424.

In June 2016, the MDA issued a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) based on Edalati’s failure to properly clean, shape, and fill root canals for nine patients, remove cavities in three patients, keep appropriate records for 12 patients, and accurately bill as to five patients. AR 303-05. The MDA issued a second NOH in September 2016. AR 309-13. The MDA continued to investigate three additional complaints. AR 419-21.

The MDA was fully prepared to prosecute the complaints at issue in the two NOHs. AR 292. They were serious and raised concerns about Edalati’s safety and competence to practice dentistry. AR 294. The MDA therefore refused any settlement offer that did not require Edalati to voluntarily resign his MDA license and agree never to seek one again. AR 294. The MDA made a counteroffer whereby Edalati would voluntarily surrender his MDA license and provide a written undertaking agreeing to never reapply for it. AR 295. The MDA would discontinue the ongoing NOH hearings and refrain from prosecuting the other three complaints as long as he did not reapply. AR 295.

On January 17, 2019, Edalati's then-counsel Kevin Toyne, Esq. (“Toyne”) told Ling that Edalati had accepted the MDA counteroffer. AR 296. In reliance on this statement, Ling recorded Edalati as having resigned his MDA license, effective that day, and did not proceed with the NOH hearings. AR 297.

On April 9, 2019, MDA sent Edalati’s new counsel Gavin Wood, Esq. (“Wood”) a letter demanding that he conclude the settlement as agreed by signing the undertaking agreeing never to reapply for a MDA license, discontinue his pending appeal, and pay the various costs of proceedings and investigations against him. AR 411. The letter acknowledged that Edalati now claimed that there was no settlement and that he wanted to contest all matters with the MDA. AR 411. The MDA maintained that the email exchanges with Toyne outlined the terms of the settlement reached on January 17, 2019. AR 411. Although Edalati refused to conclude the settlement, the letter stated that MDA was proceeding on the basis of this agreement and had taken all actions not contingent on his cooperation. AR 411.

The current MDA registrar has told Ling that Edalati seeks to set aside the settlement and has not paid the agreed costs. AR 298. He has issued a Statement of Claim against the MDA and its former Registrar based on his suspension. AR 298. He has not asked to revive the NOH hearings or applied for a new MDA license. AR 298.

In 2018, Edalati moved back to California where there were more resources than in Manitoba to help him take care of his autistic children. AR 1118-21.

On August 14, 2018, Edalati filed his first petition for reinstatement of his California license. AR 345. On October 10, 2018, the Board found him ineligible for reinstatement because, under section 1686(c), it cannot consider a reinstatement petition while an accusation is pending, which included the MDA’s accusations. AR 264, 346.

On April 18, 2019, Edalati filed his second petition for reinstatement of his California license. AR 264. That same day, Edalanti emailed Board investigator Juan Fuentes (“Fuentes”) and informed him that the MDA no longer considered him a dentist in Manitoba due to the 2019 settlement. AR 409. He planned to fight the decision through any available legal route. AR 409. He asked Fuentes whether, since the MDA considered the case closed, that was enough for him to proceed for reinstatement in California. AR 409. Otherwise, he needed to know what the Board needed for him to proceed. AR 409.

On April 22, Edalati sent Fuentes a copy of an April 9 email from MDA’s attorney, David Swark, Esq (“Swark”) to Edalati’s lawyer, Wood, confirming that the MDA understood Edalati was contesting the 2019 settlement. AR 405.

On May 1, 2019, Investigator Fuentes contacted MDA attorney Swark to confirm the dismissal of all MDA accusations against Edalati. AR 405, 416. On May 7, Swark responded that, although the MDA and Edalati had resolved the pending disciplinary hearings, Edalati now refused to comply with the MDA settlement and denied that it exists. AR 405, 418. The MDA had implemented those parts of the settlement it could perform without his cooperation. AR 418. The MDA’s registrar had recorded Edalati as having permanently surrendered his MDA license and his ineligibility to apply for a new one. AR 418.

On May 8, 2019, Investigator Fuentes issued a supplemental investigation report detailing his communications with Edalanti and Swark. AR 405. The report reiterated Swark’s assertion that Edalati refused to comply with the MDA settlement and denied that it exists. AR 405. However, the MDA had recorded Edalanti as having permanently surrendered his MDA license, effective January 17, 2019. AR 405. Fuentes recommended that the Board request that the Office of Attorney General perform a legal review of the second petition for reinstatement pursuant to the strictures of section 1686. AR 406.

On January 15, 2020, ALJ Wim van Rooyen issued a decision denying the second petition for reinstatement. AR 259-71. The Board adopted this decision, effective February 27, 2020. AR 258.

The decision noted that the applicant had the burden of demonstrating rehabilitation in a reinstatement petition. AR 268. At the December 2019 hearing on the second petition, Edalanti admitted that he committed the acts of gross negligence and incompetence which led him to surrender his California license. AR 266, 269. In the seven years since, he has been the subject of multiple complaints, investigations, and disciplinary proceedings in Manitoba. AR 269. This led to what MDA considers a final surrender of his MDA license. AR 269.

Edalanti testified that he never authorized the MDA settlement and was considering options to appeal the surrender of his MDA license. AR 266. Even if Edalanti could appeal the surrender of his MDA license, he had not shown that he would prevail on the underlying MDA disciplinary issues. AR 269. Although all Edalanti’s colleagues asserted that he was a competent and caring practitioner, they had not worked with him since 2008 and did not know about his disciplinary issues before the MDA. AR 269-70.

Edalanti took education courses to improve his skills in root canal procedures and recordkeeping. AR 270. However, he did so in November 2019, only a month before the administrative hearing. AR 270. The Board’s decision concluded that Edalanti had not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation to restore his license. AR 270.

7. Edalani’s Request for a Queen’s Bench Declaration Concerning the MDA Settlement

On October 29, 2020, Edalanti sought a declaration from the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba that he never reached an agreement with the MDA to settle the disciplinary proceedings against him. AR 631-32.

In March 2021, Edalanti filed a third petition for reinstatement of his California license (“Reinstatement Petition”). AR 115-18. The Reinstatement Petition disclosed that his MDA license was “presumed surrendered” in January 2019. AR 116.

In a narrative statement, Edalanti asserted that, after the MDA learned he had surrendered his California license, it limited his license for one year with no endodontics privilege until the peer review committee reached a decision. AR 127. The MDA later acknowledged that the registrar made a mistake and wrongly issued him a non-limited license for the next three years. AR 127. The MDA registrar’s refusal to accept responsibility caused some serious issues later on. AR 127. In 2017, Edalanti was suspended for 20 days for performing a root canal procedure, but it became clear it was the registrar’s mistake. AR 127. The MDA reversed the suspension when it realized the mistake, and the registrar resigned the next day. AR 127.

As for the MDA settlement, Edalanti asserted that he refused to sign the letter of settlement his lawyer presented to him in February 2019. AR 128. Despite this, the MDA took a position that that the parties had reached an agreement. AR 128. Although Edalanti responded negatively to the MDA settlement when asked about it in April 2019, the MDA unilaterally adopted it and considered his MDA license surrendered and revoked. AR 128.

The Reinstatement Petition asserted that Edalanti completed 271 hours of continuing education in the past two years, and his narrative asserted completion of 297 units since December 2019. AR 123, 128.

The 2021 Reinstatement Petition included a letter from Heather Havener (“Havener”) as character evidence. AR 233. Havener asserted that since she started working for Edelati on and off in December 2001, he has been the kindest, most caring, and professional doctor who shows utmost care and respect for patients and staff. AR 233.

Edelati submitted a letter from Patricia Lucero (“Lucero”) dated August 11, 2018. AR 375. She asserted that in the nine years she worked for him, she had nothing bad to say about him. AR 375. He cared about his patients, and some asked for him over a decade after he had left that office. AR 375. He is a caring, ethical, and knowledgeable dentist. AR 375.

Edelati submitted a variety of certificates for completion of various courses. AR 482, 489-97, 498-600.

On April 1, 2022 the Queen’s Bench court granted Edelati’s application for a declaration. AR 631, 651. The court held that Edalanti never agreed to permanently surrender his MDA license. AR 651. At most, he offered to surrender it for a limited period and the MDA never accepted that offer. AR 651. The court left to the parties what would happen with the two NOH hearings. AR 651.

On October 21, 2021, the Office of the Attorney General gave notice of the April 6, 2022 hearing on the Reinstatement Petition. AR 110, 112. The hearing on the Reinstatement Petition occurred on April 6 and 7, 2022. Pertinent testimony is as follows.

Mark Saklawi (“Saklawi”) is a dental technician who manufactures teeth. AR 1040. The impressions of teeth he received from Edalati were satisfactory enough to make the false teeth. AR 1044. He regularly followed up on a case. AR 1045.

Their relationship started as professional and evolved into a friendship. AR 1045. Edalati was always honest in his dealings and dedicated to providing good dental services. AR 1045-1046. He had a passion for the business and took pride in doing good work. AR 1046.

Armen Manssourian (“Manssourian”) is a dentist. AR 1059. He has known Edalati since their first days of dental school in 1994. AR 1061. They have never practiced together, but he has remained a close friend. AR 1061, 1066.

Dental school allows students to observe each other during hands-on aspects of the program, mostly in the last two years. AR 1061-1062. Manssourian and Edalati were part of a group of four to six close friends who took every opportunity to observe each other. AR 1063, 1065. Competitive spirit often causes students to develop an impression of how good the other students are. AR 1064. Manssourian thought Edalati is a skilled dentist. AR 1054. Edalati is a close friend. AR 1067. He would not question his character or integrity. AR 1066-67. Although Manssourian has not observed Edalati’s work since dental school, he would entrust him with his dentistry and his family. AR 1067-68.

Manssourian did know about Edalati’s situation in Manitoba. AR 1066. He did not know that the MDA’s disciplinary action concerned root canal therapy. AR 1078. Knowing that two jurisdictions have found possible issues with this does not affect his opinion of Edalati. AR 1079. He himself has made mistakes during root canals, biting off more than he can chew. AR 1079. He may have been lucky as to discipline, but he has made mistakes that cost people teeth. AR 1079. That does not make him a bad dentist. AR 1079.

Root canals are probably the most difficult work in dentistry. AR 1080. Telling Manssourian that a dentist has trouble with them would elicit a “join the club” from him. AR 1081. An acute perforation one day would not keep him from doing another root canal the next day. AR 1081.

To an extent, the patient accepts that risk. AR 1081. Manssourian tells his patients that root canals allow them to keep their teeth for another one to five years, but it is not a cure. AR 1081. The tooth could very well crack the next day. AR 1081.

Working with patients requires striking a balance between keeping the patient happy and doing the right thing. AR 1084-85. Patients will ask a dentist to save a tooth, while the dentist says the cost and energy involved is not worth saving a tooth that might be gone already. AR 1085. If the patient insists, the dentist will warn the patient the process is risky and may still end with the loss of the tooth. AR 1085. Balancing whether the dentist can extend the life of the tooth with how much it may take to do so is a challenge faced every day. AR 1086.

When Edalati worked at his sister’s dental practice from 2001 to 2005, she took on some procedures while he did hardcore work like root canals. AR 1093, 1095. Once Edalati met his wife, he spent two days a week working with his sister in Vallejo and the rest with his wife’s dental practice in Vacaville and Stockton. AR 1093-94.

Edalati estimated that he performed 800-1,000 root canals before he moved to Manitoba. AR 1098. He performed more root canals in Manitoba, about 2500 over ten years. AR 1098. Root canals comprise 10-15% of his practice. AR 1181.

After a dentist graduates from dental school, he must enroll in 50 course units every two years. AR 1097.

With respect to the accusations in the SAA, CK approached Edalati in September 2008 after he had sold his practice that July to prepare for the move to Manitoba. AR 1108. The dentist to whom Edalati had sold the practice asked him to stay to keep the office going and avoid turning patients away until he could take over. AR 1108. CK came in with pain and said that a dentist had told her she needed a root canal, but that she should also consider extraction because the root canal would be tough. AR 1108.

Edalati admitted that he made mistakes with CK, so he was not about to blame them on anyone. AR 1109. The week before trial, the Deputy Attorney General made an offer that Edalati either surrender his license or agree to probation. AR 1109. Probation would have required him to come to California a few times a month to work, which was not viable with his two kids. AR 1109. Edalati knew he would violate that term of probation, so he opted for surrender of his license. AR 1110.

The license surrender agreement required the Board to deem all facts in the SAA as true should Edalati seek a new California license. AR 1110. He admitted that he did wrong. AR 1111. Although he billed CK for work he did not actually perform, he had his secretary refund the $973 when the Board informed him of the complaint. AR 1115, 1186. He admitted that he failed to perform sufficient follow-up on CK. AR 1185.

The MDA audited all the root canals Edalati had done in Manitoba since 2012 when it learned about the discipline in California. AR 1112. Out of 1000 root canals, the MDA found ten cases of problems with the charting, the root canal itself, and billing. AR 1113. Although he relied on his assistants for any recordkeeping and billing, he admitted that it was ultimately his responsibility. AR 1115.

Although an endodontic specialist charges more, Edalati now recognizes that he should have referred CK to one for work out of his scope. AR 1180-81, 1142. As a 55-year-old looking for few complications in the last few years of practice, he likely will never touch a root canal again. AR 1181-82.

When Edalati applied for a new California license in 2018, the Board told him he could not apply until the MDA’s case was resolved. AR 1123-24. He asked his lawyer for ways to wrap up the MDA hearings. AR 1124. He was willing to surrender his MDA license because he wanted his California license and was not going to practice in Manitoba anymore. AR 1124, 1168-69. When the MDA sent him a settlement offer, however, he refused to agree that he could never reapply without conceding the allegations in the NOHs. AR 1125-27.

Although Edalati never agreed to the MDA settlement, he sent the MDA’s April 9, 2019 letter to the Board to see what its position was. AR 1199-1200. Because the MDA took the position that he had surrendered his MDA license and the NOH hearings were closed, Edalati thought he might now qualify for reinstatement. AR 1197. MDA was not going to back off, so he asked the Board if it would consider granting a hearing. AR 1197-98. He represented to the Board that he did not personally believe he had surrendered his MDA license. AR 1198.

A week before his testimony, the Manitoba court invalidated the MDA settlement. AR 1128. His MDA license is now inactive, not surrendered. AR 1129. Edalati did not know what the MDA planned to do next. AR 1129. The Board’s counsel asked why Edalati thought he could pursue a California license when the NOH hearings were ongoing without a settlement. AR 1205. He responded that if the hearings take place, MDA can at most subject him to a three-year suspension after which he could apply to have his MDA license reinstated. AR 1206. He understood the jurisdictional issue the Board was concerned about if the MDA proceedings were pending. AR 1217.

One of the reasons the Board denied his second petition for reinstatement was that he failed to show he had taken sufficient coursework to demonstrate rehabilitation. AR 1131. He has since taken an annual course by John West, DDS, and his son that is meant for dentists who have performed root canals but now seek to elevate their skill. AR 1132. On four days from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., participants perform root canals on extracted teeth where a real endodontist would not conduct a root canal because it is too tough or impossible. AR 1132, 1134. The UCLA Endodontic Continuum Course also involves practical training, but for more days, longer hours, and with different endodontists coaching on different tools and procedures. AR 1137.

Edalati completed 300 hours of coursework that was not hands-on, plus 48 residency hours at UCLA, for a total of almost 350. AR 1176. When asked why he took so much coursework, Edalati asserted that he wanted to get back to dentistry by defeating the previous assertion that he has not accepted responsibility or rehabilitated himself. AR 1176.

Endodontics has changed a lot since Edalati first learned how to conduct root canals in 1994. AR 1140-41. Back then, the process only involved one endodontist and a $200,000 camera. AR 1141. Now, a special camera for only $14,000 makes it almost impossible to perforate. AR 1141. While Edalati learned about new techniques through his coursework, he more importantly learned his limits. AR 1141. He would not have tried to conduct CK’s root canal had he known these limits. AR 1142.

He comes from a family all of whom lost their teeth at a young age. AR 1194-1195. That inspired him to pursue dentistry, despite a background in electrical engineering. AR 1195. Dentistry is his job and passion, and he wants to return to it. AR 1194.

Lucero was Edalati’s office manager in charge of billing, consulting with patients, and managing the front desk and girls in the office. AR 1148. She has no complaints about Edalati, an “awesome doctor” who received many compliments for being nice. AR 1150. He cared about his patients and staff and has never disrespected anyone or lied. AR 1151. He wants to return to dentistry because he enjoys it. AR 1154.

Daniel Zaldivar (“Zaldivar”) is a Board Special Investigator. AR 1278. He confirmed that Edalati complied with the terms of the 2012 discipline under the SAA settlement. AR 1285. He initially had not complied with the cost recovery requirement, but he paid at the end of April 2021. AR 1285.

The Board reasoned that the second petition for reinstatement could move forward because MDA contended that Edalati had surrendered his MDA license under the MDA settlement. AR 1305-06. The Board knew at the time that Edalati contested whether there was a settlement. AR 1306.

On April 20, 2022, the MDA and Edalanti entered a settlement agreement whereby the MDA agreed not to pursue the complaints raised in NOHs 1 and 2. AR 662. In return, Edalati acknowledged that his registration changed to “non practicing” in May 2018 and that he has not sought or maintained non-practicing status since. AR 678-79. He agreed not to seek registration and licensure in Manitoba until he retrained and completed any assessment, training, continued education, or supervised clinical experience required by the MDA registrar. AR 679. If the assessment could not be performed through the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, the MDA would consider other competency-based assessments that it determined would satisfy the assessment, training, education and course requirements, or supervision necessary to ensure public safety in the practice of dentistry. AR 679. The prior license restriction on endodontics would continue on any new registration until Edalati demonstrated competency. AR 679. Edalati further agreed to reimburse MDA $149,277.27 for costs resulting from Edalati’s then-counsel adjournment of the appeal in reliance on the now set aside MDA settlement. AR 680.

On July 18, 2022, the ALJ issued a proposed decision recommending denial of the Reinstatement Petition. AR 693, 722.

The proposed decision acknowledged that the 2022 MDA settlement resolved the question of the Board’s jurisdiction. AR 696.

The proposed decision found that Edalati’s credibility was compromised by the voluminous certificates of course completion he submitted as evidence. AR 696. The total hours for one day sometimes exceeded or were close to the full 24 hours. AR 696, 710. For example, he asserted 22 hours on April 1, 25 on April 11, and 51 on April 12. AR 710.

At the hearing, Edalati did not address the facially inherently improbable number of education hours or the actual dates or hours printed on the certificates. AR 710. His testimony did not lay a foundation of accuracy for the online certificates and only concerned the general process of attending an online course, a live-online course, and a live course. AR 710. As presented, at least a portion of the certificates were fraudulent and called his credibility into question. AR 710-11.

The proposed decision credited Edalati’s attendance at the IDEA and UCLA programs because of his specific testimony as to then information learned. AR 711. However, his attendance at these programs and his suspect online education course work did not establish rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. AR 711.

Edalati has not practiced dentistry since 2018. AR 712. He testified that he was willing to comply with the terms of a probationary license. AR 712. However, Edalati equated his license surrender and the subsequent passage of more than three years with successful completion of probationary terms. AR 712. For this reason, he did not think a probationary license was necessary to ensure protection of the public. AR 712.

Edalati generally accepted responsibility for his failed root canal and billing and record keeping errors for CK. AR 712. However, he testified that his errors occurred days before the transfer of ownership for his practice and months before he moved to Manitoba. AR 712. This created confusion whether he, the new dentist, or the new staff was responsible for the negligence and unprofessional conduct. AR 712. For example, Edalati testified that the new dentist should have followed up with CK’s root canal and his new staff needed to reverse the billing. AR 713. Edalati did not testify to any communication with or reasonable reliance on the new dentist and staff. AR 713. He also did not explain why it took until November 2008 to reverse the billing. AR 713. As a result, Edalati minimized his responsibility by attributing the cause of his errors to the new dentist and staff. AR 713.

As for the MDA’s allegations, it was not established that Edalati admitted their truth. AR 713. Nevertheless, his admissions and the uncontroverted evidence established the basis for the MDA license restriction and suspension of his MDA license. AR 713. At the hearing, Edalati denied responsibility for operating in violation of his license restriction because the MDA had issued the wrong hard copy 2015-17 licenses. AR 714. However, he had agreed in 2014 that the restriction would only be lifted if the MDA’s complaints committee investigation ended with a recommendation that he be allowed to perform endodontics therapy. AR 714. Because that never happened, he knew he was violating the restriction. AR 714. This lack of integrity is consistent with how he “took advantage” of the 2019 MDA settlement to establish jurisdiction for the second petition for reconsideration, despite knowing that he would contest that settlement. AR 714.

Saklawi, Manssourian, and Lucero all testified to Edalati’s skill, compassion, and attentiveness to his work. AR 714-16. These attestations had little weight because these witnesses were not familiar with the MDA’s disciplinary proceedings and had not worked with Edalati in over ten years. AR 720. Edalati did not submit any character letters or testimony from Manitoba colleagues. AR 720.

Edalati did not establish remorse for his actions. AR 720. Although he admitted committing the violations and accepted general responsibility, he blamed dental office staff for CK violations. AR 720. He denied wrongdoing in Manitoba and disregarded his responsibility to abide by the license restriction. AR 720. He further blamed his violations of the restriction on the MDA’s failure to properly note it on hard copies of his license. AR 720.

Edaliti’s rehabilitation evidence from coursework and character was either not credited or given little weight. AR 721. He has not practiced dentistry in four years, and he had not established that he has the skills to do so. AR 721. Rather, he has shown a pattern of acting without integrity and dishonestly. AR 721. Although he informed the Boad that he disagreed with the MDA settlement, he used it to overcome the jurisdictional obstacle to reinstatement of his license. AR 721. In other words, he knowingly submitted a false document to the Board. AR 721. He also knowingly violated the terms of his MDA license restriction. AR 721.

The ALJ concluded that Edalati failed to present sufficient and credible proof of his rehabilitation and recommended that the Reinstatement Petition be denied. AR 721-22.

On August 12, 2022, the Board adopted the proposed decision with minor corrections, effective September 12, 2022. AR 724-25.

On September 9, 2022, Edalati submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Board’s decision (“Reconsideration Petition”) and requested a ten-day stay on the deadline for the Board to evaluate it. AR 757. Edalati asserted that reconsideration was proper under Government Code section 68081 because he never had the opportunity to address the ALJ’s misunderstanding of the rehabilitation evidence. AR 759. The decision showed the ALJ’s misunderstanding of the timing of his continuing education certificates, and therefore assumed that Edalati lacked integrity. AR 760. Edalati was never made aware of this misunderstanding until he received the proposed decision on the Reinstatement Petition. AR 760-61.

Edalati contended that the completion date for many of the certificates was the date he completed the exam, which was not always the same day he completed all the materials for that course. AR 761, 763. Had the ALJ asked, Edalati would have explained that these certificates were not meant to suggest that he completed nearly or more than 24 hours of coursework in one day. AR 761.

On September 9, 2022, the Board granted a stay on the effective date of its decision on the Reinstatement Petition until September 22, 2022. AR 768-769. On September 20, 2022, the Board vacated its decision and remanded the matter to the OAH solely to receive additional evidence and argument on the validity of the continuing education course completion certificates Edalati had submitted. AR 771-72.

Edalati was the only witness at the February 8, 2023 hearing on the Reconsideration Petition. AR 1499, 1566. His pertinent testimony is as follows.

The certificates Edalati submitted required passage of a test on the course material. AR 1501. He was not required to take the test on the same day as the course. AR 1501. He had one year to take the course, print out and study the study material, and take the test anytime he wanted. AR 1501-02. He had an hour to take the test, usually 15 questions but sometimes 40, and then submit his answers online. AR 1502-03. The website generated the certificate the minute he submitted the answers. AR 1502. The date on the certificate therefore reflects the date Edalati took the test. AR 1503. If he submitted five tests in one day, the five certificates with the same date. AR 1505.

These tests and courses were online, but Edalati struggles to look at computer screens for a long time. AR 1503-04. He therefore printed out the material to read at his own pace. AR 1504. When the websites generated the certificates, he did not check the information on them. AR 1504.

The ALJ noted that the evidence still showed Edalati was taking 40 exams within two weeks from March 31, and up to 10 or 16 on a single day in December. AR 1507-09. Edalati explained that although the participant has one hour to take the test, he or she has access to the test and could finish it on paper beforehand. AR 1511. Inputting answers can take only five minutes. AR 1511. It was possible to take six tests per hour, which can lead to a lot of certificates from four to five hours of test-taking in one day. AR 1512.

Live webinars like A.C.E.S are more expansive because someone is on the other side of a computer lecturing in real time. AR 1512. The test-taking remains the same. AR 1512. The program sends the password to submit answers online after the participant finishes the test questions. AR 1512. Edalati typically only finished one webinar course per day, as opposed to finishing multiple self-study tests in one sitting. AR 1512.

The ALJ referred to one of the Academy certificates for a course on California infection control. AR 1512-13. The certificate stated that Edalati had successfully completed the self-study course, but a plain reading of the certificate did not support Edalati’s position because it does not say the course was completed on April 1. AR 1513. Instead, the certificate identified two contact hours on April 1. AR 1513. Edalati’s testimony seemed to contradict the straightforward reading of the certificate. AR 1513.

Edalati responded that self-study courses, such from the Academy, do not involve contact with any Academy staff. AR 1513-14. The certificate reflects his two hours of self-study. AR 1514.

The Board’s counsel asked if Edalati was able to obtain any documents, procedural manuals, or other evidence to corroborate Edalati’s narrative of how the courses and exams work. AR 1516. Edalati offered to show one on his phone, but the ALJ refused to receive it because Edalati was required to submit it in advance if he wanted it considered. AR 1517.

The ALJ explained that she consulted Edalati’s testimony about the certificates from the Reconsideration Petition hearing. AR 1529. Edalati and his attorney chose not to go through the hundreds of certificates one by one. AR 1529-30. The ALJ asked Edalati why he now claimed that he never had the opportunity to address the ALJ’s alleged confusion. AR 1530. Edalati responded that no one ever raised the question of how he could take so many courses in one day. AR 1530.

Edalati testified that the Board requires only 15 units of live courses for reinstatement, and he presented evidence of 108 units even without self-study. AR 1532, 1543. 48 of those units were via two weekends with UCLA, and 60 were from a live webinar. AR 1532.

Edalati testified that he has suffered enough. AR 1546. He took responsibility multiple times in the April 2022 hearings for the mistakes he made with one patient 14 years ago. AR 1533. Seven years of investigation into the MDA complaints came up empty as he had predicted. AR 1546. Despite this, a root canal from 14 years ago has been destroying his life. AR 1544.

Edalati testified that he has done everything he can to rehabilitate himself. AR 1533. Instead, he is now being accused of things he was never accused of previously. AR 1534.[3] To the extent that the Board or ALJ considered the self-study program rules elementary, the Board is to blame. AR 1542-43. The ALJ should ask the Board what the certificate of education is about. AR 1542-43. He paid for the courses and took them, during a pandemic that caused only restricted courses to be available. AR 1543.

Edalati reiterated that he was open to restrictions on a new license. AR 1544. As a 58-year-old, he is too old to be trying challenging things he should not be doing. AR 1544. A lot has changed in the 14 years since Patient CK. AR 1544.

On March 10, 2023, the ALJ submitted a proposed decision recommending denial of the Reconsideration Petition. AR 1431-87.

Edalati admitted gross negligence and incompetence when he performed endodontic surgery on CK and his related billing and record keeping. AR 1438.

Edalati did not acknowledge responsibility for or the significance of the disciplinary actions the MDA took against him, including the 2014 issuance of a restricted dental license and a 2017 suspension. AR 1438. He instead attributed responsibility for this solely to the MDA. AR 1438.

The MDA audited Edalati after it received notice of the Board’s action against his California license. AR 1438. At the same time, it investigated a 2012 patient complaint lodged with the MDA regarding endodontic treatment Edalati had performed. AR 1438. Edalati never admitted the truth of the MDA’s findings from this investigation, but he did agree to a restriction on his MDA license prohibiting him from conducting endodontic treatment. AR 1439. Ling’s affidavit confirmed that Edalati agreed the restriction was in effect until a Complaints Committee completed its investigation and recommended that he be allowed to perform endodontics therapy. AR 1441. This restriction was never removed. AR 1441.

The paper certificate issued by MDA from April 15, 2014 to February 28, 2015 reflected the restriction. AR 1442. Due to a clerical error, the papers certificates for 2015-17 did not. AR 1442. However, Edalati knew from the terms of the 2014 agreement that the restriction would only be lifted after certain conditions were met. AR 1442. The MDA suspended his license for a short period, June 2-28, 2017, for performing endodontic therapy in violation of the restriction. AR 1442. When it reinstated the MDA license on June 28, 2017, the restriction was still in effect. AR 1442.

Edalati’s statement accompanying his Reinstatement Petition asserted that the MDA audit resulted in “one year of limited license with no endodontics privilege.” AR 1442. Yet, he knew the restriction was indefinite. AR 1443. He also attributed his 2017 suspension to the MDA’s error on the paper copies of his MDA license. AR 1443. As a result, he did not take responsibility for his violation of the endodontics restriction by performing endodontic therapy AR 1443.

Edalati’s Reinstatement Petition relied on the finality of the 2019 MDA settlement to establish the Board’s jurisdiction. AR 1445. Despite this reliance to establish jurisdiction, he was contemporaneously contesting its validity in Manitoba. AR 1445. He acknowledged during the April 2022 hearing that he pursued reinstatement of his California license because he figured he “might as well take advantage of” the documented resolution of the MDA discipline against him. AR 1445-46.

Four days before the April 2022 hearing on the Reinstatement Petition, the Manitoba Queens’ Bench invalidated the 2019 MDA settlement. AR 1446. The subsequent 2022 MDA settlement resolved the open issue of the Board’s jurisdiction. AR 1446-47. The 2022 settlement required Edalati’s voluntary surrender of his MDA license. AR 1446. If he were to reapply for licensure and registration, he first would have to complete to the MDA’s satisfaction any assessment, training, continuing education, and/or supervised practice specified by the MDA. AR 1447. Any renewed license would be subject to the endodontics restriction until he demonstrates competency in endodontics. AR 1448.

Edalati submitted certificates for 326 hours of continuing education from January 2020 to February 2021, plus completion of four- and six-day courses in 2019 and 2021. AR 1448. The ALJ’s proposed decision on the Reinstatement Petition did not credit Edalati for the hours presented. AR 1449. Many hours were occurred on the same date or within a close proximity of dates, sometimes with close to or over 24 hours claimed for a given day. AR 1449. Edalati did not address the particular dates and times on the certificates at the Reinstatement Petition hearing. AR 1450. He failed to address the facially inherently improbable number of education coursework hours presented. AR 1450. This made the certificates unreliable, and Edalati failed to demonstrate rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. AR 1450. At least a portion of the certificates appeared to be fraudulent and called his credibility into question. AR 1450.

The proposed decision on the Reinstatement Decision did credit Edalati’s attendance at the IDEA and UCLA programs because of his specific testimony about what he learned. AR 1450. However, his attendance at these training sessions and his suspect online education coursework did not establish rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. AR 1450.

Edalati generally accepted responsibility for his failed root canal and record keeping errors as to CK. AR 1452. CK had asked him not to refer her to a specialist due to costs and insurance coverage and he performed the procedure. AR 1451.

However, after the failed procedure, Edalati did not refer CK to a specialist who could address the errors. AR 1451-52. Edalati noted that the root canal occurred days before the transfer of ownership for his practice and months before he moved to Manitoba. AR 1452. This created confusion as to whether he, the new dentist, or the new staff was responsible for the negligence and unprofessional conduct. AR 1452. Edalati asserted that the new dentist should have followed up with CK’s root canal and his new staff needed to reverse the billing. AR 1452. Edalati did not testify to any communication with or reasonable reliance on the new dentist and staff. AR 1452. He also did not explain why it took until November 2008 to reverse the billing. AR 1452. By attributing responsibility to the new dentist and staff, Edalati minimized his own responsibility. AR 1452.

The truth of the allegations the MDA brought against Edalati was not established. AR 1453. Nevertheless, his admissions and the uncontroverted evidence established the basis for the license restriction and suspension of his MDA license. AR 1453. Edalati denied that he operated in violation of his license restriction because the MDA had issued the wrong hard copy for his license. AR 1453. However, he agreed in 2014 that the restriction would only be lifted if the MDA’s investigation ended with a recommendation that he be allowed to perform endodontics therapy. AR 1453. Because that never happened, he knew he was violating the restriction. AR 1453. This lack of integrity is consistent with the manner in which he “took advantage” of the 2019 MDA settlement to establish jurisdiction for the third petition for reinstatement despite knowing that he would contest that settlement. AR 1453.

Saklawi, Manssourian, and Lucero all testified to Edalati’s skill, compassion, and attentiveness to his work. AR 1454-55. Havener also submitted a statement that called Edalati kind, caring, and professional. AR 1455.

The Reconsideration Petition asserted that the ALJ fundamentally misunderstood the timing of the certificates, which Edalati never had the opportunity to address. AR 1456. Contrary to this assertion, Edalati provided detailed testimony about the certificates and training at the Reinstatement Petition hearing. AR 1456, 1458-61. He testified that he completed the exams on the same day he took the course. AR 1456. He testified that they teach you the subject in the course and, at the end of the day, the program gives a test to pass to get the certificate. AR 1459-60. His counsel moved on to other topics, but nothing kept Edalati from presenting evidence of or laying a foundation for the certificates. AR 1456. Because he never reviewed the dates on the certificates during his testimony, clarifying questions on this topic were not warranted. AR 1456.

The ALJ declined to credit Edalati’s testimony at the Reconsideration Petition hearing because it was inconsistent with his testimony at the Reinstatement Petition hearing. AR 1462. He testified that he could print the materials and test questions for Academy and Dental Care online courses and complete the online examinations at any time. AR 1462. He had up to one hour to complete the exam online, but he often completed them in 15-20 minutes because he could print the questions in advance. AR 1462. He could take as many examinations as he wanted in one day, which is why so many of his certificates contain the same completion date. AR 1462.

This new testimony was self-serving and failed to establish the certificates’ validity by clear and convincing evidence. AR 1462. Corroborating evidence for his argument would have included a copy of the respective online course manuals or instructions, or other written documentation from the course providers, describing the course as something other than live on Zoom by which the participant could print out the materials, study the materials on any given day, and take the examination a day or more later than the date initiating the course. AR 1463. He also could have included copies of the online education materials he printed out and studied, or the examinations he testified that he printed and completed before completing the examination online. AR 1463. Testimony or written declarations from a representative of any of the three online course providers could have also corroborated his testimony. AR 1463. Edalati provided none of these things and never testified to any effort to collect them. AR 1463. Under Evidence Code section 412, when someone produces weaker and less satisfactory evidence than it was within his power to produce, the evidence is viewed with distrust. AR 1463.

Edalati also could not explain the inconsistency between his testimony and the face of the certificates. AR 1463. The Academy’s certificate states “contact hours on” and then a blank for a date. AR 1463. The plain reading of this language means that the participant performed the identified number of contact hours -- course instruction, material review, and exam -- on the date provided. AR 1463. Edalati testified that the date on the certificate only reflects the date of the final test, which took less than an hour. AR 1463. When questioned about the plain language, Edalati testified that he did not have contact with anyone, which was a non-responsive answer. AR 1463.

Assuming arguendo that the ALJ credited this testimony, the result was still improbable. It would mean that Edalati finished 40 exams in a two-week period and 16 exams in ten days. AR 1464. Overall, his testimony was inconsistent and self-serving without any corroborating evidence. AR 1464. It was insufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that his online continuing education certificates were valid. AR 1464.

Aside from the flaws in Edalati’s testimony, there were other issues with the certificates that raised questions about his integrity and honesty. AR 1479. He submitted two copies of the same five-hour certificate from the Academy. AR 1479. One was complete, but the other was missing the bottom half containing signatures of the instructor and Edalati. AR 1479. This suggests that at least one copy was facially altered. AR 1479.

Edalati also submitted certificates for the same courses completed twice within weeks of each other. AR 1479. Two Dental Care certificates for a three-hour course in “Clinical Practice Guideline for an Infection Control/Exposure Control Program in the Oral Health Setting” had dates of November 27 and December 5, 2020. AR 1479-80. Two certificates for a three-hours course in “Adjunctive and Prophylactic Use of Antibacterial Agents in Dentistry” were dated November 15 and 27, 2020. AR 1480. The duplicates show that Edalati attempted to present repeat courses within weeks of each other as new coursework. AR 1480. When combined with the altered Academy certificate, Edalati demonstrated dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

Section 1601.2 of the Dental Practice Act identifies the protection of the public as the highest priority when the Board exercises its licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions. AR 1480. Edalati had the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he has rehabilitated himself and is entitled to have his license restored. AR 1481. That proof needed to be sufficient to overcome the former adverse determination. AR 1481.

Rehabilitation is a state of mind, and the law looks with favor upon rewarding one who has achieved reformation and regeneration with the opportunity to serve. AR 1482. Acknowledging the wrongfulness of past actions is an essential, but insufficient, first step. AR 1482. The true indication is sustained conduct over time. AR 1482.

Edalati’s violations as to CK were grave and caused her harm. AR 1483. He failed to refer her to a specialist who could treat and repair the failed root canal. AR 1483. He also committed recordkeeping and billing violations when he received and accepted payment for the failed root canal. AR 1483. This demonstrates dishonesty and a lack of integrity. AR 1483.

Edalati’s actions in Manitoba reflect both continued incompetence to perform dentistry and dishonesty in his practice. AR 1483. The MDA investigations concerned allegations of multiple failed dental procedures and improper billing. AR 1483. This led the MDA to restrict his MDA license in 2014, and he violated that restriction in 2017. AR 1483. The 2022 MDA settlement shows that this restriction would remain in effect if he renewed his MDA license. AR 1483, 1616. This fact demonstrates that the MDA believed Edalati would pose a risk to the public if he has an unrestricted license. AR 1483.

Edalati presented evidence of online and in-person continuing education course participation. AR 1483. This evidence of online coursework was not credited and raises doubt as to Edalati’s integrity and honesty. AR 1484. The in-person coursework reflects only ten days of training, and he did not testify how this training improved his relevant dentistry skills. AR 1484.

The Reconsideration Petition asserted that the denial of the Reinstatement Petition stemmed from a determination that the certificates of continuing education course completion were suspect. AR 1484. It also asserted the ALJ misunderstood the timing of the certificates and failed to question Edalati about their authenticity. AR 1484. Edalati failed to demonstrate either point by clear and convincing evidence. AR 1484.

At best, he provided additional testimony that further established his dishonesty. AR 1484.

Edalati’s testimony at the Reconsideration Petition hearing was inconsistent with his testimony at the Reinstatement Petition hearing. Contrary to his testimony now, at the Reinstatement Petition hearing Edalati did not distinguish between online coursework providers and never testified that he printed the materials in advance and later completed multiple examinations in one day. AR 1485. Even if the new testimony were credited, it did not explain the number of exams he took in such a short period. AR 1485.

Saklawi, Manssourian, Lucero, and Havener’s attestations had little weight because these witnesses were not familiar with the MDA’s disciplinary proceedings and have not worked with Edalati in over ten years. AR 1485-1486. Edalati presented no character evidence from Manitoba colleagues. AR 1486.

Edalati admitted general wrongdoing in treating CK but also attributed responsibility to CK and dental office staff. AR 1486. He denied wrongdoing in Manitoba and disregarded his responsibility for his failure to abide by the restriction on his MDA license. AR 1486.

Edalati had not practiced dentistry in four years, and the presented evidence did not establish he has the skills necessary. AR 1486. Moreover, the evidence did not reflect rehabilitation; it showed a pattern of acting dishonestly and without integrity. AR 1486-87.

Edalati relied on a 2019 MDA settlement he disagreed with to overcome jurisdictional obstacles. AR 1487. In other words, he knowingly submitted a document he believed to be false to the Board to initiate reinstatement proceedings. AR 1487. He also knowingly violated the terms of his 2014 MDA license restriction, and he presented unreliable and facially fraudulent certificates of educational coursework. AR 1487.

Edalati failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that protection of the public would be served if his license was reinstated, even on a probationary basis. AR 1487.

On April 12, 2023, the Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision on the Reconsideration Petition with an effective date of May 12, 2023. AR 1562-63.

On April 19, 2023, Edalati submitted a request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision on the Reconsideration Petition. AR 1622. On May 2, 2023, the Board denied the request for reconsideration for failure to show good cause. AR 1625-26.

Petitioner Edalati contends that the ALJ’s[4] decision lacks substantial evidence to deny reissuance of his license. Edalati raises three issues: (1) the ALJ’s conclusion that he was dishonest about the status of the MDA proceedings is not supported, (2) the ALJ’s conclusions about his continuing education certificates is not supported, and (3) the ALJ’s conclusion that Edalati engaged in incompetent or dishonest practice in Manitoba is not supported.

In disciplinary determinations, protection and safety of the public is paramount. §1601.2. Criteria for evaluating rehabilitation include: (1) the nature and severity of the acts or offenses; (2) total criminal record; (3) the time that has elapsed since commission of the acts or offenses; (4) whether the petitioner has complied with any terms of parole, probation, restitution, or any other sanctions lawfully imposed against them; (5) if applicable, evidence of expungement proceedings; and (6) evidence, if any, of rehabilitation submitted by petitioner. 16 CCR §1020(c), (d).

The ALJ essentially found that Edalati was dishonest in his presentation and testimony. Specifically, the ALJ found that Edalati denied responsibility for operating in violation of his MDA license restriction because the MDA had issued the wrong hard copy 2015-17 licenses. AR 714. However, he had agreed in 2014 that the restriction would only be lifted if the MDA’s complaints committee investigation ended with a recommendation that he be allowed to perform endodontics therapy. AR 714. Because that never happened, he knew he was violating the restriction. AR 714. This showed a lack of integrity. AR 714, 1453. So did the way he took advantage of the 2019 MDA settlement to establish jurisdiction for the Reinstatement Petition even though he was contesting it. AR 1453.

The ALJ also found that Edalati’s statement accompanying the Reinstatement Petition falsely stated that the MDA audit resulted in “one year of limited license with no endodontics privileged. AR 1442. Yet, he knew the restriction was indefinite. AR 1443. The statement was false.

The ALJ further found that at least a portion of his submitted certificates were fraudulent and called his credibility into question. AR 1450. His self-serving testimony at the Reconsideration Petition hearing was inconsistent with his testimony at the Reinstatement Petition hearing and did not show the certificates were valid. AR 1464, 1484. The duplicate certificates for the same courses taken twice within weeks of each other and two copies of the same five-hour certificate from the Academy supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Edalati showed dishonesty and a lack of integrity. AR 1480, 1484.

“On substantial evidence review, we do not ‘weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it.’” Doe v. Regents of University of California, (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1073. The court is required to accept all evidence which supports the successful party, disregard the contrary evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences to uphold the verdict. Minelian v. Manzella, (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 457, 463. Credibility is an issue of fact for the finder of fact to resolve (Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 613, 622, and the testimony of a single witness, even that of a party, is sufficient to provide substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. In re Marriage of Mix, (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614. Doe v. Regents of University of California, (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1074.

The ALJ clearly found that both Edalati’s conduct and testimony lacked integrity and was dishonest. While the court agrees with Edalati that one of the ALJ’s bases for her credibility finding lacks evidentiary support (see post), the ALJ’s credibility finding is dispositive of this case. The court cannot reweigh that finding, which by itself is substantial evidence supporting the decision to deny reinstatement of Edalati’s license.

2. Edalati’s Reliance on the MDA’s Position About Settlement to Justify the Board’s Jurisdiction

Edalati argues, and the court agrees, that he did not mislead the Board about the status of the MDA proceedings. Pet. Op. Br. at 6-9; Reply at 1-4.

As Edalati points out (Pet. Op. Br. at 6), his first petition for reinstatement was denied in pursuant to section 1686 because of the then-pending proceedings by the MDA. In 2019, he entered into negotiations with the MDA to resolve the MDA matters. However, a dispute arose over whether Edalati had agreed, through his counsel, to permanently surrender his Manitoba license.

In a letter dated April 9, 2019, MDA’s counsel, Skwark, informed Edalati’s Canadian counsel, Wood, that the MDA, although fully aware of Edalati’s position that no settlement had been reached, unilaterally deemed his license permanently surrendered, effective January 17, 2019, and elected not to proceed with the two pending NOH hearings. AR 411-12.

On April 18, 2019, Edalati sent an email to Investigator Fuentes stating that MDA had closed his cases, taken his name off their roster permanently and no longer considered him a dentist in Manitoba. AR 409. “However, I am planning to fight this decision in whatever legal rout (sic,) that is available to me. Since Manitoba consider (sic.) the case to be close, I need to know, if this is enough for [me] to proceed here….Otherwise I need to know what do you need from me to proceed my license here.” AR 409. Three days later, Edalati provided Fuentes with a copy of Skwark’s April 9, 2019 letter to Edalati’s attorney. AR 405.

On May 1, 2019, Fuentes contacted attorney Skwark to verify that all pending MDA accusations against Edalati had been dismissed. AR 405, 416). On May 7, 2019, Skwark responded:

“It is true that the MDA and Dr. Edalati resolved the pending disciplinary hearings, outstanding appeal and outstanding investigations. Unfortunately, Dr. Edalati refused to comply with the settlement and has gone so far as to deny that there is a settlement. As a result, MDA has implemented those parts of the settlement that do not require his cooperation. Of relevance to you is that the MDA’s Registrar has recorded Dr. Edalati as having permanently resigned his membership it the MDA and surrendered his license effective January 17, 2019. Further, Dr. Edalati is not ever eligible to apply for a license to practice dentistry in Manitoba.” AR 405, 418 (emphasis added).

On May 8, 2019, Fuentes submitted a Supplemental Investigative Report to the Board, which included this information, including copies of the referenced correspondence. His report concluded that Edalati and the MDA have resolved the pending disciplinary hearings, but “Dr. Edalati refuses to comply with the settlement and had denied there is a settlement.” As a result, MDA has implemented those parts of the settlement that do [not] require his cooperation. MDA’s registrar has recorded Dr. Edalati as having permanently resigned his membership in the MDA and surrendered his license effective January 17, 2019. . ..” AR 405.

Thus, the Board allowed Edalati’s second petition for reinstatement to proceed, knowing that Edalati contested the validity of the settlement and had specifically inquired of the Board investigator whether his petition for reinstatement could move forward under those circumstances. AR 409. At the December 2019 second reinstatement hearing, Edalati testified that he had never reached a settlement with the MDA to surrender his license in Manitoba and he was considering options to appeal its decision. AR 266. ALJ Van Rooyen acknowledged this testimony in his January 15, 2000 proposed decision denying reinstatement. AR 266.

On March 4, 2021, Edalati filed the Reinstatement Petition in which he stated that his license in Canada was “presumed surrendered” and disclosed that he had refused to sign the settlement negotiated by his lawyer and the MDA, the MDA was aware of his position that there was no settlement, and he had provided the documents corroborating these facts to the Board the year before. AR 116, 127-28. At the April 6, 2022 hearing on the Reinstatement Petition, Edalati testified to his dispute with the MDA and also that a few days earlier, on April 1, 2022, the Queen’s Bench agreed with him that there was no valid settlement.

The Board argues that the ALJ did not deny the Reinstatement Petition solely because Edalati was disingenuous about the MDA disciplinary action. The ALJ merely considered Edalati’s handling and disclosure of the MDA action in considering his credibility. Regardless, there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings that Edalati was misleading in the handling and disclosure of his MDA disciplinary matter. Edalti admitted that he understood the jurisdictional issue whether the Board could hear his reinstatement petition if the MDA proceedings were still pending (AR 1217-18) and testified that he tried to resolve the Manitoba action by surrendering his license because the disciplinary process was taking too long and that he wanted to apply for reinstatement of his California license. AR 1168-69. But Edalati also admitted that he used the MDA’s belief that his license was surrendered as evidence that the MDA proceedings had concluded, even though he was appealing the MDA’s decision. AR1197-98. He testified that he “might as well take advantage of” the MDA’s position on the status of the disputed MDA proceedings. AR 1232-33. This establishes Edalati’s attempt to proffer a settlement as final even though he knew it was not. Opp. at 14-15.

The court agrees with Edalati that his disclosures to the Board in both the second reinstatement petition and the Reinstatement Petition of his position that he had never entered into a settlement with the MDA and that he intended to challenge the MDA’s registration of his license as permanently surrendered, undermines the ALJ’s conclusion that he acted without integrity and dishonestly because he “knowingly submitted a document he believed to be false to the Board to initiate reinstatement proceedings.” AR 1486-87. The ALJ’s conclusion that Edalati attempted to “’take advantage’ of the fact that MDA unilaterally registered his license as surrendered and considered the matter closed to allow him to overcome the jurisdictional obstacle the pending MDA discipline posed to Petitioner’s attempts to reinstate his license” (AR 1487) is true, but there was nothing about that conduct that was dishonest. Edalati took inconsistent positions by arguing to the Queen’s Bench that he had not agreed to a settlement with the MDA and to the ALJ that the MDA settlement resolved the issues of jurisdiction under section 1686. But he fully disclosed his reasoning in taking an inconsistent position by relying on the MDA’s position on settlement.

The ALJ’s conclusion that Edalati’s position about the status of the MDA proceedings was dishonest or lacked integrity is not supported by substantial evidence.

The ALJ’s proposed decision on the Reinstatement Petition found that Edalati’s credibility was compromised by the voluminous certificates of course completion he submitted as evidence. AR 696. The total hours for one day sometimes exceeded or were close to the full 24 hours. AR 696, 710. For example, he asserted 22 hours on April 1, 25 on April 11, and 51 on April 12. AR 710.

At the Reinstatement Petition hearing, Edalati did not address the facially inherently improbable number of education hours or the actual dates or hours printed on the certificates. AR 710. His testimony did not lay a foundation of accuracy for the online certificates and only concerned the general process of attending an online course, a live-online course, and a live course. AR 710. As presented, at least a portion of the certificates were fraudulent and called his credibility into question. AR 710-11.

In her proposed decision on the Reconsideration Petition, the ALJ noted that Edalati asserted that she fundamentally misunderstood the timing of the certificates in her Reinstatement Petition proposed decision, which Edalati never had the opportunity to address. AR 1456. Contrary to this assertion, Edalati provided detailed testimony at the Reinstatement Petition hearing about the certificates and training at the reinstatement hearing. AR 1456, 1458-61. He testified that he completed the exams on the same day he took the course. AR 1456. They teach you the subject in the course and, at the end of the day, the program gives a test to pass to get the certificate. AR 1459-60. His counsel moved on to other topics, but nothing kept Edalati from presenting evidence of or laying a foundation for the certificates. AR 1456.

The ALJ declined to credit Edalati’s testimony at the Reconsideration Petition hearing because it was inconsistent with his testimony at the Reinstatement Petition hearing. AR 1462. He testified that the Academy and Dental Care online courses allowed him to print the materials and test questions and complete the online examinations at any time. AR 1462. He had up to one hour to complete the exam online, but he often completed them in 15-20 minutes because he could print the questions in advance. AR 1462. He could take as many examinations as he wanted on one day, which is why so many of his certificates contain the same completion date. AR 1462.

The ALJ found Edalati’s new testimony self-serving and failed to establish the certificates’ validity by clear and convincing evidence. AR 1462. Corroborating evidence for his argument would have included a copy of the respective online course manuals or instructions, or other written documentation from the course providers, describing the course as something other than live on Zoom by which the participant could print out the materials, study the materials on any given day, and take the examination a day or more later than the date initiating the course. AR 1463. He also could have included copies of the online education materials he printed out and studied, or the examinations he testified he printed and completed before completing the examination online. AR 1463. Testimony or written declarations from a representative of any of the three online course providers could have also corroborated his testimony. AR 1463. Edalati provided none of these and never testified to efforts to collect them. AR 1463. Under Evidence Code section 412, when someone produces weaker and less satisfactory evidence than it was within his power to produce, the evidence is viewed with distrust. AR 1463.

Edalati could not explain when questioned about the inconsistency between his testimony and the face of the certificates. AR 1463. The Academy’s certificate states “contact hours on” and then a blank for a date. AR 1463. The plain reading of this language means that the participant performed the identified number of contact hours -- course instruction, material review, and exam -- on the date provided. AR 1463. Edalati asserted that the date on the certificate only reflects the date of the final test, which took less than an hour. AR 1463. When questioned, Edalati testified that he did not have contact with anyone, which was a non-responsive answer. AR 1463.

In response to the ALJ’s findings, Edalati argues that he engaged in extensive educational rehabilitation which specifically focused on the failings that precipitated this proceeding. In total, he has taken hundreds of hours of courses on these topics, far more than required by the Board. AR 1532, 1543. Pet. Op. Br. at 10-11.

At the Reinstatement Petition hearing, he testified generally about the number and type of courses he had completed but neither of the attorneys nor the ALJ raised any issued about the validity or timing of the certificates. Indeed, in closing argument, the Board’s counsel stated: “Petitioner has provided proof of completion of an abundant number of continuing education courses.” AR 451. Pet. Op. Br. at 11.

At the Reconsideration Petition hearing, he testified that he purchased many of the on-line classes in a bundle, printed out all the material, including the test which must be successfully competed to be awarded credit, would study the material whenever he had time and complete the test questions on paper, and later would go back online and fill in the answers he had already recorded on paper. Accordingly, the completion of each online test would only take a few minutes and he often completed multiple online tests on a single day. The certificates of completion were issued on the date the test was submitted. Pet. Op. Br. at 11-12.

In response, the ALJ expressed skepticism, noted that Edalati did not provide instructions from the course providers corroborating his testimony, and seemed offended that Edalati asserted that he had not been asked clarifying questions at the Reinstatement Petition hearing because she had not limited his testimony. AR 1529-30. The ALJ referenced a certificate of completion from the Academy which certifies “2.00 contact hours” on April 1, 2020. AR 148. The ALJ noted that “it does not say completed on April 1. It doesn’t reference anything that you’re saying. It identifies two contact hours on April 1, and this is how all of the Academy of Dental Learning reads. So your presentation, your verbal explanation to me is contradictory to the straightforward reading of the certificate itself.” AR 1512-13. Pet. Op. Br. at 12.

Edalati argues that the ALJ’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Edalati’s counsel argued that he has handled several hundred of these cases, he has always simply submitted certifications, and never been questioned about their validity. AR 1536-37. Contrary to the ALJ’s point, the Academy certificate does say the course was completed on April 1, 2020 in two locations: (1) “CONTINUING EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION” and (2) “Academy of Dental Learning & OSHA Training Certifies that Bahman Edalati License: CA 48103 Has successfully completed the self-study course: California Infection Control 02-5631-17001 for 2.00 Contact Hours on April 1, 2020.” AR 148 (emphasis added). Edalati completed the self-study course on April 1, 2020, (the date he submitted the completed test online). Since he passed the test, he was awarded two credit hours on that date. The same “completion” language is used on all of the Academy self-study course certificates (AR 489-95) and similar language appears on the Dental Care certificates. AR 485, 488, 491, 497. Pet. Op. Br. at 12-13.

The ALJ also took issue with “repeat coursework and duplicate certificates”. AR 1479-80. The ALJ cited one certificate which was submitted twice, noting that one of the two certificates was blank on the bottom half, missing the instructor and signature sections. AR 902, 933, 1479. The ALJ concluded that this certificate had been “altered” and was apparently “blocked out.” This conclusion is unsupported speculation. The far more reasonable conclusion is that the certificate with the blank bottom half was the result of a photocopy error. It is illogical to assume that the Edalati would have doctored a single certificate to gain an additional five hours of study credits when he already had hundreds of hours of credits beyond that required. Pet. Op. Br. at 13.

Finally, the ALJ cited certificates for two courses that appear to have been completed twice. The total hours awarded for these two courses is 12 hours. Even if Edalati took each of these two courses twice, and the credits should only count once for each course, this reduces his total claimed credits by six hours, an insignificant error. Pet. Op. Br. at 13-14.

The substantial evidence standard of review sinks Edalati’s arguments. His testimony and argument about the certificates notwithstanding, the ALJ could properly conclude that the plain language of the certificate providing for 2.0 contact hours on April 1, 2020 means he performed those hours on that date. Edalati’s testimony that he was entitled to print out, study, and write test answers on earlier dates and then take the test on the completion date is inconsistent with this plain language. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s interpretation and thus the inconsistency in Edalati’s testimony.

Additionally, the ALJ correctly concluded that Edalati testified inconsistently at the two hearings. He provided detailed testimony in the Reinstatement Petition about the certificates and that he completed the exams on the same day he took the course. AR 1456, 1458-61. His testimony at the Reconsideration Petition hearing was inconsistent with this testimony, a point which Edalati fails to address in his argument.

The ALJ also was correct that Edalati did not produce any corroborating evidence for his argument at the reconsideration hearing, such as (1) a copy of the respective online course manuals or instructions, or other written documentation from the course providers, describing the course as something other than live on Zoom by which the participant could print out the materials, study the materials on any given day, and take the examination a day or more later than the date initiating the course, (2) copies of the alleged online education materials he printed out and studied, or the examinations he testified he printed and completed before completing the examination online, or (3) testimony or written declarations from a representative of any of the three online course providers could have also corroborated his testimony. AR 1463.

Edalati further fails to address the ALJ’s point that, even if she credited his testimony, the result is still improbable because it would mean that Edalati finished 40 exams in a two-week period and 16 exams in ten days. AR 1464.[5]

Finally, as the Board argues, the online coursework issue relates to Edalati’s lack of credibility, but the ALJ also properly concluded that Edalati failed to show what he learned from the trainings or how his dentistry skills, including those involving root canals, record keeping, and billing, improved as a result of this coursework. AR 1486. He had not practiced in four years and the multitude of coursework evidence did not show his present skills in dentistry. AR 1486. Opp. at 15-16.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Edalati’s testimony was insufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that his online continuing education certificates were valid or that they showed rehabilitation.

Edalati argues that the ALJ wrongly concluded that he performed incompetent dentistry in Manitoba based on the MDA’s institution of disciplinary proceedings. The record establishes that despite seven years of investigations, there has never been a finding or an admission by Edalati of any wrongdoing in those proceedings. To the contrary, his 2022 MDA settlement agreement confirms only that his license is inactive (not surrendered), that he may reapply for licensure at any time, and that the MDA agreed not to prosecute or pursue the hearings or investigations. AR 660-64. The settlement agreement also provides that, if his license becomes active, the previous restriction on endodontics will be continued until he demonstrates competency in that area. However, this restriction was imposed in 2014 as a result of Edalati’s truthful disclosure in connection with his annual Manitoba license renewal application that an accusation had been filed against him in California related to an endodontic procedure. The restriction was not based on any finding of incompetence or wrongdoing while he practiced in Manitoba. AR 422-23, 1112. Pet. Op. Br. at 14; Reply at 7-8.

Edalati’s argument is misleading. Contrary to his contention, the endodontics restriction was not based solely on his disclosure of the California accusation. It is true that, based on California accusation, the MDA expressed concerns about Edalati’s “competence as a dentist” (AR 421) and concluded that the California disciplinary matter pending against him was “serious” and “raised concerns about his safety to practice dentistry”. AR 294. As a result, Edalati agreed to the 2014 license restriction that precluded him from performing endodontic therapy until the MDA’s investigation was complete and until such time the MDA recommended that he may perform such therapy. AR 423-25.

However, the endodontic restriction continued after the MDA issued the NOHs in 2016. AR 303-05, 309-13. The Board correctly points out that the MDA’s NOHs alleged incompetent practice related to endodontic procedures, billing for services he did not perform, and recordkeeping violations. AR 303-05, 309-11, 421, and 423. Opp. at 17. The MDA also was investigating three other complaints. AR 419-20. Thus, the restriction was imposed initially as a result of the California accusation, but it surely continued due to the NOHs and pending investigations.

While there is no proof that Edalati performed incompetent dentistry in Manitoba, the MDA proceedings have evidentiary value for the Reinstatement and Reconsideration Petitions. In settling with the MDA, Edalati agreed that he is not eligible to reapply for MDA licensure until he successfully passes the National Dental Examining Board of Canada or other “competency-based assessments . . . necessary to ensure public safety in the practice of dentistry.” AR 661. He further agreed that the practice restriction relating to endodontics will be continued on any future license until he demonstrates his competency in that field. AR 661. The ALJ was entitled to rely on these practice restrictions in Manitoba -- not as proof of incompetency, but rather as evidence that Edalati had not demonstrated competency to another licensing agency.

In reply, Edalati shifts his argument and contends that a handful of unsuccessful root canals (out of more than 1,000 performed (AR 1113)), is neither unusual nor a sign of incompetency. At the Reinstatement Petition hearing, Manssourian, a practitioner of general dentistry for the past 24 years, testified that “root canals are probably the most difficult work in dentistry….Everybody has trouble with root canals.”· AR 1080-81. Edalati argues that the point is not to minimize the MDA’s concerns, but rather, to point out that an unsuccessful root canal does not necessarily imply negligence. Edalati testified that he is no longer willing to perform root canals due to their complex nature. AR 1182. Nothing in his statements suggests that he lacks competency to perform general dentistry, and neither the ALJ nor the MDA ever identified any deficiencies in his performance of dental services other than root canals. Therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for the ALJ to conclude that he is incompetent to engage in general dentistry based on several unadjudicated root canal accusations he no longer seeks to perform. Reply at 8-9.

The value of the MDA practice restrictions does not lie solely in Edalati’s lack of competence in endodontics. In the MDA settlement, Edalati agreed not to seek registration and licensure in Manitoba until he retrained and completed any assessment, training, continued education, or supervised clinical experience the MDA registrar designated. AR 679. If the assessment could not be performed through the National Dental Examining Board of Canada, the MDA would consider other competency-based assessments that it determined would satisfy the assessment, training, education and course requirements, or supervision necessary to ensure public safety in the practice of dentistry. AR 679. This competence requirement was not limited to endodontics and the ALJ could rely on the practice restrictions in Manitoba as evidence that Edalati had not demonstrated competency in general dentistry to the MDA.

Edalati also testified that he had problems with charting and billing while practicing in Manitoba. AR1113-16. He argues that he has taken multiple classes to ensure that he understands and corrects those deficiencies. AR 170-173, 194, 199, 489, 495. Reply at 9. Perhaps so, but that does not mean the Board cannot consider his admitted record-keeping and billing deficiencies in Manitoba.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions that Edalati’s actions in Manitoba support his failure to show by clear and convincing evidence that his license should be reinstated.

Edalati ignores the ALJ’s findings on Edalati’s failure to fully accept responsibility and show remorse.

In her proposed decision on the Reinstatement Petition, the ALJ found that Edalati generally accepted responsibility for his failed root canal and record keeping errors for CK. AR 712. However, he tried to excuse his errors. He testified that his errors occurred days before the transfer of ownership for his practice and months before he moved to Manitoba. AR 712. According to Edalati, this raised an issue whether he, the new dentist, or the new staff was responsible for the unprofessional conduct. AR 712. Edalati testified that the new dentist should have followed up with CK’s root canal and his new staff needed to reverse the billing. AR 713. Yet, Edalati did not testify that he had any communication with the new dentist and staff on these issues. AR 713. He also did not explain why it took until November 2008 to reverse the billing. AR 713. As a result, Edalati minimized his responsibility by attributing the cause of his errors to the new dentist and staff. AR 713. Edalati did not establish remorse for his actions. AR 720.

Additionally, he disregarded his responsibility to abide by the Manitoba license restriction. AR 720. He blamed his violation of the restriction on the MDA’s failure to properly note it on hard copies of his license. AR 720; see also AR 1452. As a result, he did not take responsibility for his violation of the endodontics restriction. AR 1443.

The ALJ’s findings on failure to accept responsibility are substantial evidence supporting her decision.

This case is not just about a 14-year-old grossly negligent root canal, although the Board found it to be a serious violation. It is about Edalati’s failure to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is rehabilitated from this misconduct such that he is entitled to have his license restored. The ALJ’s credibility finding and Edalati’s misstatement about his MDA proceeding, refusal to accept responsibility, blaming of others, failure to demonstrate the validity of his online coursework, and failure to link his online and live coursework to improvement in his dentistry skills are substantial evidence supporting the Board’s denial of licensure.

The Board’s counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment, serve it on Edalati’s counsel for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then submit the proposed judgment along with a declaration stating the existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re: judgment is set for April 11, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Business & Professions Code unless otherwise stated.

[2] Edalati requests judicial notice of excerpts from the website of the Academy of Dental Learning (“Academy”). RJN Ex. A. The Board opposes, and the parties debate whether a private company website may be judicially noticed. The existence of a company’s website may be judicially noticed. Ev. Code '452(h); Gentry v. eBay, Inc., (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 821 n.1 (taking judicial notice of the manner in which a company described its operations on its website). Although a court may take judicial notice of a website, it may not accept its contents as true. See Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 193 (“When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” [Citations omitted.]). But see Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1573 n.2 (finding that documents published on Internet were amenable to judicial review to the extent the records were “...not reasonably subject to dispute and [were] capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”).

While the court tends to agree with Edalati that instructions from a private website may be subject to judicial notice, it may not judicially notice RJN Ex. A. “The general rule is that a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency.” Toyota of Visalia v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 872, 881. The court can only admit additional evidence where the party seeking its inclusion shows (1) the evidence could not have been presented to the agency in the first instance in the exercise of reasonable diligence or (2) was improperly excluded. CCP §1094.5(e); Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, (“Western States”) (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 578 (“Western States”); Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka, (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 366. In addition, extra-record evidence is admissible only if it is relevant. Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4^th at 570. Extra-record evidence is presented through a motion to augment or correct the administrative record. See e.g., Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 93, 101. Edalati has not made a motion to augment the record and has not met the test for extra-record evidence under CCP section 1094.5(e). The request for judicial notice of RJN Ex. A is denied.

[3] Edalati’s counsel asserted that this was the first time anyone has asserted the certificates appear dishonest in the hundreds of cases he has handled. AR 1536.

[4] Because the Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision on the Reconsideration Petition, for convenience the court will refer to the ALJ’s decision.

[5] The court need not address the ALJ’s point about repeated coursework and duplicate certificates.