Home » Wit of Mandate – Blog » Reapplying After Denial: Beware Waiting Periods

Reapplying After Denial: Beware Waiting Periods

Generally, the State of California is averse to issuing professional licenses. More than almost any other state in the union, the State of California makes its license applicants jump through the most hoops to obtain something that many of them have worked to achieve their entire life–the right to practice their profession. Whether it is through onerous examinations, exhaustive applications, and probing deeply into the character history of the applicant, California really sets itself apart from most of its sister states.

And that unique disposition of doing all it can to avoid issuing the license continues even after a licensee tries and fails to secure a license their first time.

Specifically, almost all California professional licensing agencies have time bars in place preventing applicants from re-applying after license denial, revocation, or surrender. At a minimum, healthcare licensing agencies make re-applicants wait at least one (1) calendar year from the date of denial, revocation, or surrender; and many make re-applicants wait up to three (3) years!

However, that is not even the most draconian. Rather, the California Department of Insurance earns that title. They have what acts as a de facto bar for reapplication of five (5) years! Technically, it is not an absolute ban. However, by way of California Insurance Code section 1669, the Commissioner for the Department of Insurance is empowered to summarily deny an insurance license applicant’s application if the applicant has had any occupational license (including an insurance broker license) denied, revoked or suspended within the prior five years.

Ouch. Given these constraints on re-application, it is a good idea to do an exhaustively good job on your initial application, no matter what license you are seeking. Specifically, if you have any type of convictions or criminal transgressions in the past, you will want to make certain that you do not have a disclosure obligation. The failure to disclose a conviction that is required to be disclosed is automatically presumed to have been done so intentionally by the applicant to avoid having to address or answer questions about that event.

Granted, the disclosure of some criminal convictions may hold up your license. It may result in an offer of an initial probationary license. However, such is infinitely superior to a denial, sustained after hearing on a Statement of Issues, in which both the substantially related criminal conviction AND the failure to properly disclose the conviction are held as grounds for the denial.



Wit of Mandate Disclaimer

Wit of Mandate - the official blog of Simas & Associates, Ltd., is made available by Simas & Associates, Ltd. to the general public for educational purposes only.  Specifically, the entries contained within Wit of Mandate are designed to provide the general public with general information concerning California and Federal law.  Wit of Mandate does not provide specific legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Simas & Associates, Ltd.  Wit of Mandate is not an effective or appropriate substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state with experience in your practice area or forum of law.

Please note that the information on Wit of Mandate may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While Wit of Mandate is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. 

Blog Archives


Categories