Dataset 02 · initial collection · separate regulator · site record current through
Osteopathic Medical Board of California: DUI Discipline
California licenses physicians through two boards. This dataset covers the second one, and its numbers are never added to the first.
Compiled by Kanwar Partap Singh Gill, MD · last reviewed · Observatory methodology
Lifecycle state · initial collection
This dataset publishes no aggregate, rate, chart or finding. It holds two disclosed candidate records, neither yet verified against an Osteopathic Board primary document. Nothing here may be cited as an OMBC statistic.
California has two physician boards
An M.D. in California is licensed and disciplined by the Medical Board of California. A D.O. — an osteopathic physician, with the same practice rights and the same prescribing authority — is licensed and disciplined by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. Two regulators, two registers, two enforcement histories.
This matters for any statistic anyone might want to build. A rate calculated over Medical Board actions has a Medical Board denominator: the physicians that board licenses. Adding osteopathic matters to the numerator while leaving the denominator alone inflates the rate; adding both without saying so produces a figure that describes no actual regulated population. The two datasets are therefore kept strictly apart, and this project publishes no combined California physician DUI figure at all.
Cross-board comparison is a legitimate future question — the two boards share a broad sanction vocabulary of probation, stayed revocation, surrender and revocation, which makes a parallel coding scheme feasible. When that comparison is published it will display both denominators side by side. It will never display a combined total.
Candidate records
Both entries below are anchors supplied to this project rather than records read out of an Osteopathic Board publication. They are published as a disclosed candidate list because concealing a lead is worse than disclosing an unverified one — but a candidate is not a record, and neither of these enters any count.
| Licensee | Licence | Effective | Statute | Reported outcome | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANDERSON, RACHEL T., D.O. | 20A11090 | Vehicle Code section 23152(a) | Licence issued; revocation stayed, 5 years probation | CANDIDATE | |
| KRUEGER, KYLE R., D.O. | 20A6303 | Vehicle Code section 23152(b) | Revocation stayed, 5 years probation | CANDIDATE |
One of the two carries a reported later stage: a licence revocation in 2016 following probation-enforcement proceedings. That is recorded as an unverified subsequent action on the same record rather than as a second matter, for the same reason the Medical Board dataset treats a petition to revoke probation as a later stage of one history.
What will and will not count
The inclusion rule here is stricter than a keyword search would be. An Osteopathic Board entry is not classified as a driving matter because it mentions alcohol, or because it cites the unprofessional-conduct provision that alcohol matters commonly travel under. The underlying disciplinary document has to identify a driving offence. Alcohol use and impaired driving are different facts with different legal elements, and a register that mentions the first does not establish the second.
The Osteopathic Board’s sanction vocabulary maps closely enough onto the Medical Board’s to make parallel coding possible: a stayed revocation permits continued practice under probation, while revocation and surrender end the right to practise. Those are the same structural distinctions Dataset 01 codes, which is what makes a future side-by-side reading meaningful rather than merely arithmetic.
Read next: The Medical Board investigation · Dataset 01 registry · Observatory methodology
Data generation DUI-2026-09-09-R9 · last reviewed · Dataset 02 publishes no aggregate