House Bill 893 would change how the North Carolina State Board of Chiropractic Examiners handles disciplinary matters and board meeting records. On the disciplinary side, it caps the costs the Board may assess against a licensee in most cases: up to $1,000 for a consent settlement without a full Board hearing, up to $3,000 for a case adjudicated after a full Board hearing or referral to the Office of Administrative Hearings, and only reasonable actual costs, including attorneys’ fees, if the Board makes specific findings that the licensee’s defense was dilatory or not asserted in good faith. The bill also makes any agreement requiring payment above those limits void and requires the Board to provide an itemized cost statement and refund any overcharge.
The bill also imposes new transparency requirements on the Board’s meetings. It states that the Board is a public body and must keep full and accurate minutes of official meetings, including summaries of reports, names of public commenters and summaries of their comments, and the exact motion language and each member’s vote on motions. Draft minutes would have to be posted within 15 business days after each meeting, with final minutes posted immediately after approval. The Board would be required to adopt rules to implement the act, and the changes would take effect October 1, 2025, applying to disciplinary actions on or after that date.
HB893 would amend G.S. 90-157.4 and G.S. 90-144, directly limiting the North Carolina State Board of Chiropractic Examiners’ authority to recover disciplinary costs and expanding statutory meeting-record requirements for the Board. It would create enforceable cost caps, invalidate contrary settlement terms, require refunds for overcharges, and preserve judicial review of civil penalties under Chapter 150B. It would also add detailed open-meeting minute requirements and publication deadlines, affecting the Board’s administrative procedures, disciplinary enforcement practices, and public-record obligations.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to reflect a reform-oriented approach that is likely intended to increase fairness, predictability, and transparency in chiropractic board proceedings. The absence of recorded opposition or votes means the available context does not show whether the bill was broadly supported or contested at this stage.
The main points of potential contention are the limits on disciplinary cost recovery and the new transparency mandates. Supporters would likely view the cost caps as protecting licensees from excessive or unpredictable assessments and the minute requirements as improving accountability. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that the caps could reduce the Board’s ability to recoup legitimate investigative and legal expenses, especially in complex or contested cases, and that the detailed minute/publication requirements could increase administrative burden. The bill’s exception allowing full actual costs when a defense is found to be dilatory or not in good faith suggests an attempt to balance those concerns.