West Virginia Senate Bill SB 345

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Refer: 1/15/26

Caption

Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Technology Board of Examiners rule relating to Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Technology Board of Examiners

Summary

SB 345 relates to a rule of the Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Technology Board of Examiners. Based on the caption and available legislative context, the bill appears to concern the board’s regulatory framework for medical imaging and radiation therapy technology, likely addressing how the board administers licensure, standards, or related professional requirements. The bill text itself was not available in the provided materials, so the specific substantive changes proposed by the rule cannot be identified from the record supplied here. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 15, 2026, indicating that it was under review for legal and regulatory sufficiency rather than having reached final passage. No committee transcript, floor debate, or vote record was provided, so there is no documented discussion of amendments, implementation concerns, or support/opposition positions in the available materials.

Impact

If enacted or approved as a rule-related measure, SB 345 would affect the statutory and regulatory oversight of the Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Technology Board of Examiners and, by extension, licensed medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in West Virginia. Its practical impact would likely be on board procedures, licensing standards, enforcement, or administrative rules governing the profession, but the exact statutory sections affected cannot be determined from the materials provided.

Sentiment

There is no recorded debate or voting history in the provided context, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly. The referral to Judiciary suggests the measure was being processed through the normal legislative review channel, but the available record does not show whether lawmakers viewed it as routine, technical, or controversial.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials because there are no committee transcripts, amendments, or votes. If concerns existed, they would most likely have centered on the scope of the board’s authority, licensing requirements, professional standards, or administrative burdens on practitioners, but that is not stated in the record supplied here.