Southern California PSYCHIATRIST – Volume 73, Number 5 – January 2025

Table of Contents
President’s Column: A New Year, A Renewed Commitment Amidst Adversity by Galya Rees, MD
Mental Health Diversion in California by Reba K. Bindra, MD and Emily T. Wood, MD
Class Action Lawsuit Against the Maker of Prominent Cannabis Vape Products by Timothy Pylko, MD
New SCPS Members Spotlight
November Council Highlights
SCPS Career Day 2024
Life Member Contributions
George L. Mallory Award Guidelines

President’s Column:A New Year, A Renewed Commitment Amidst Adversity
by Galya Rees, MD
Dear SCPS Members,
As we enter 2025, I had planned to reflect on our achievements and aspirations for the year ahead. However, the devastating fires sweeping through Southern California have reshaped the start of this year for so many of us. My heart goes out to all of you who have been affected by this crisis.
I know that some of our members have lost their homes or have family members who have suffered similar losses. Others are facing the uncertainty of evacuations, while many are generously opening their homes to friends, colleagues, and loved ones in need. The recovery process will take time, and the emotional toll of these experiences will linger—for us and for our patients.
In times like these, it is helpful to lean on our community. I hope that you can all find a moment to check in on each other—whether it’s a colleague, friend, or trainee—and offer support where you can. If there is any way SCPS can assist you or your patients, please do not hesitate to reach out. We are here to help, whether you need information, resources, or simply someone to listen.
Achievements and Resilience in 2024
While 2025 begins with significant challenges, it’s important to remember all we accomplished together in 2024 despite the hurdles. Advocacy has been central to SCPS’s mission, and we focused on addressing systemic issues affecting our field.
Key areas of focus included closing the Riese gap, tackling the ongoing stimulant shortage, ensuring patient access to essential medications, and advocating for the continuation of telepsychiatry flexibilities, including controlled substance prescribing. We also worked to address the shortage of psychiatric beds at all levels—acute, IMD, and board-and-care facilities—and supported efforts surrounding the CARE Act, tele-testimony for LPS Conservatorship Hearings, and the needs of the incompetent-to-stand-trial population.
Some notable state and federal advocacy successes over the past year, which were also reported in CSAP and APA updates, include:
- Closing the Riese gap (SB 1184): Thank you again to Dr. Erick Cheung and CSAP for all their hard work on this bill.
- Expanding the definition of “psychiatric health facility” to include facilities that provide inpatient care for SUD (SB 1238).
- Telehealth flexibilities:
- Third extension of COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities for the prescribing of controlled substances through December 31, 2025.
- Equal pay for telehealth and in-person care by Medicare.
- Supervision via telehealth: The ability for residency training programs to supervise residents virtually when all parties are virtual has been extended for another year.
- Medicare telehealth flexibilities (6-month in-person requirement) currently delayed only through March 31. Further campaign efforts will be required here.
- Closing MHPAEA loopholes: Strengthening enforcement of the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act by requiring insurers to provide data illustrating that their beneficiaries have access to mental health services.
- Removal of barriers to Clozapine: The re-evaluation of the Clozapine REMS program, concluding with a vote by the FDA’s advisory committees to effectively remove barriers to accessing this highly effective medication.
Large-scale disasters like the current fires often amplify mental health needs in affected communities. Psychiatric advocacy will likely be even more important in the months ahead as we address both the emotional and systemic impacts of this tragedy. SCPS remains committed to advancing policies that improve access to care for our patients and the profession.
Educational Programs and Member Engagement
SCPS remains dedicated to offering meaningful educational opportunities. In 2024, we organized advocacy-themed Grand Rounds and didactics, committee-driven programs, and our annual Career Fair. Planning is underway for 2025 programs, and we welcome your input on topics and events that would benefit you most.
Moving Forward Together
This New Year begins with adversity, but it also calls us to draw strength from each other and to continue the work that defines SCPS. Together, I hope that we can face the challenges ahead and make meaningful progress for our members and the patients we serve.
Thank you for your resilience, your compassion, and your commitment. Please take care of yourselves and one another, and let us know how we can help.
Warm regards,
Galya Rees, MD
President, Southern California Psychiatric Society


Mental Health Diversion in California
by Reba K. Bindra, MD and Emily T. Wood, MD
2 reasons this topic is important for all psychiatrists (not just forensic specialists):
1. Your patients are interacting with the legal system.
1 in 5 of those adults with moderate to severe mental illness and/or substance use disorders are arrested annually – compared to 1 in 100 adults without.1 The odds are that your patients are interacting with the legal system. Understanding the nature of these interactions within the legal framework can help you better assess your patients’ needs, develop a strong therapeutic alliance, and work collaboratively on their treatment plans.
2. You are on the front lines of the social justice issue of our time.
Arguably, the disproportionate mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) and individuals with mental illness for non-violent crimes is the number one social justice issue facing Americans (climate change being the arguable contender).2,[a] Over the last 60 years, the US, including California, has divested in care for the seriously mentally ill, and entities charged with protecting some of the most vulnerable adults in our society have abdicated their authority to provide care and treatment.3 At the same time, we have heavily invested in law enforcement and, in many ways, US jails have become the de facto safety net for the seriously mentally ill.4 Across US jails, the rate of detainees with current serious mental illness continues to increase and has been estimated at 14.5% of males and 31% of females 5 with the vast majority being detained on non-violent/misdemeanor charges.1,6 Furthermore, just as BIPOC are disproportionately incarcerated at higher rates in the US, individuals with serious mental illness in jails are disproportionally BIPOC.7
As a psychiatrist, you are in a special position. You understand the brain and behavior. You are afforded the privileges of education and resources granted physicians. You work with individuals who experience intense societal stigma and maybe limited in their ability to advocate for themselves by nature of their illness. By understanding how the carceral system impacts your patients, you can better advocate for their needs at all levels. For instance, you will quickly see that when the legislature, county governments, and courts are tasked with treating mental illness, they create a highly convoluted system that often misperceives the relationships between illness severity and needs. Your expertise can be invaluable in explaining the needs of our patients to families, attorneys, judges, legislators, and others.
Diversion from the “justice” system
Across the US, state courts have become a default system for addressing mental health needs. As the magnitude of this problem became evident over the last 25 years, jurisdictions started to create methods for diverting individuals with mental illness away from the carceral system. The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) was developed to detail five “points of interception” whereby individuals with justice system contact may be diverted from standard prosecution and incarceration into rehabilitation-oriented alternatives. The five SIM intercepts are: (1) community contact with emergency services or law enforcement; (2) initial post-arrest hearings and detention; (3) jails and courts; (4) re-entry from jails, prisons, and forensic hospitals; and (5) community corrections, including probation and parole.8
From the mental health lens, the SIM highlights opportunities for applying evidence-based treatments in the community for individuals with behavioral and mental health disorders as a means of reducing carceral involvement. Perhaps most striking to mental health providers is that the SIM does not address the “elephant in the room” – adequate community mental health and other safety net services that could prevent the high severity of illness and crisis situations that lead to carceral system involvement (sometimes referred to as intercept 0). In California, we are taking steps to address this need. In 2002, we passed AB 988 and have been building out our behavioral health crisis continuum of care (intercept 1). And, in 2024, we made an investment in mental healthcare infrastructure and operations through the passage of Prop 1 (intercept 0). Otherwise, the bulk of California’s diversion efforts have been focused on intercepts 3 & 4.
In Miami-Dade County, individuals with mental illness who are accused of misdemeanors are diverted to community-based programs for individual treatment and rehabilitation without a focus on establishing competence (discussed below). In Miami, Judge Steven Leifman, recently retired judge, has championed the Criminal Mental Health Project since 2000. This approach involves pre-booking and post-booking jail diversion components. Pre-booking diversion methods include massive expansion of mental health crisis response, community-based stabilization options, and law enforcement mental health training (intercept 1). Post-booking diversion focuses on early identification of detainees with mental illness, transfer to community-based stabilization, and developing an individualized transition care plan aimed at reducing recidivism and improved psychiatric outcomes, recovery, and community integration (intercept 2). Misdemeanor charges are modified or dismissed in accord with the individual’s ability to voluntarily engage in the treatment plan.9 To ensure proper supports and linkages, divertees are monitored for up to a year after community re-integration.
The Miami model has been extremely successful. Between 2007 and 2017, the annual number of jail bookings and average daily population of the Miami-Dade jail were both halved. The annual recidivism rate for individuals diverted through the misdemeanor program dropped from 75% to 20%.10
Mental health diversion in California
The bulk of California’s efforts to divert individuals with mental illness from the carceral system has been via the courts since 2018 with the passage of AB 1810 which established California Penal Code § 1001.36, Diversion of Individuals with Mental Disorders.11 This law allows judges to grant pre-trial diversion into mental health programming for up to 2 years. Aside from certain excluded offenses (e.g. involuntary manslaughter, sex crimes), PC § 1001.36 can apply to felony or misdemeanor charges. If the defendant completes the agreed upon program, the charges are dropped and the case can be sealed.
To qualify for PC § 1001.36 mental health diversion:
- The defendant/patient must have been diagnosed within the last 5 years with a mental disorder other than an antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, or pedophilia;
- The court finds no clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the alleged offense;
- In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant/patient would respond to mental health treatment;
- The defendant consents to diversion, agrees to comply with the treatment plan, and waives their right to a speedy trial. There is leeway for defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial (see below) and cannot consent; and,
- The court is satisfied that the defendant does not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
The mental health treatment program that is agreed upon can be created with mental health providers in all sectors – public mental health, insurance-based, private-pay, etc. – as long as the providers submit the requested treatment updates to the court.
Implementation of mental health diversion under PC § 1001.36 is at the discretion of each county and is highly variable across California’s 58 counties.12 In Los Angeles County, the Rapid Diversion Program (RDP) was established in 2019 to more quickly divert individual from the jails by embedding the program within the early stages of case processing. The RDP was initially piloted through the LA County Public Defender’s Office and subsequently taken over by the Justice, Care and Opportunity Department (JCOD). It utilizes PC § 1001.36 to divert individuals who participate in programming, receive housing resources, and are case managed for a period of time recommended by the service provider and approved by the court.13 As of January 2024, the RDP had expanded to 7 courthouses across LA County and diverted 2000 cases with a non-recidivism rate of >90%.14 The RAND corporation recently released a report on the RDP saying that “The program has filled an essential gap in the spectrum of options for people in Los Angeles County with behavioral health concerns who are involved in the criminal legal system.”15 JCOD is also taking on oversight of program providers and is playing a role in efforts to expand the availability of community-based treatment providers in the county.
Counties across California are making efforts to divert individuals away from incarceration and into mental health programs. And, those with serious mental illness are still struggling. For instance, a criticism of the LA County RDP is that it only serves individuals with mild to moderate severity mental illness.
Incompetent to stand trial (IST) – Guilty of mental illness
Unsurprisingly, our “justice” system is not designed to promote mental health but to assess for innocence or guilt and determine the consequences. The legal system requires that individuals be able to appreciate and understand their charges and work with their attorney to participate in their own defense for their case to be adjudicated (for a plea agreement to be reached or for a trial to proceed). When a defendant does not meet these requirements due to their mental illness, they are deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST) and their criminal case is put on hold until their competency is restored. As far as the legal system is concerned, any “treatment” provided during pre-trial detainment is provided with the goal of competency restoration. Recent estimates put the number of defendants who are referred for competency evaluation each year in the US at greater than 140,000.16
In California, once a defendant is found IST their fate depends on the level of the offense they were charged with – more serious or felony (FIST) vs. less serious or misdemeanor (MIST) charges. For FIST defendants, the court has up to 2 years to restore competency so that the criminal case can get back on track and be adjudicated. Tools at their disposal include involuntary medication orders (IMOs) to administer antipsychotic medications even when a defendant refuses, treatment at the Department of State Hospitals, jail-based restoration programs, and community-based restoration programs. For an excellent overview of the FIST system and restoration approaches, see Dr. Bindra’s previous article.17
For MIST defendants, since 2022, the California courts no longer attempt to restore competency and only have the options of diverting individuals to a community program or dropping the charges. In 2021, Senator Stern (SD 27, parts of Ventura and LA counties) authored legislation that admirably sought to move away from treating the legal system which focuses on competency restoration and toward treating the individual with comprehensive services in the community. That bill repealed provisions regarding the restoration of competency for MIST defendants, including involuntary medication orders, with options for defendants to go into mental health diversion programs.[b]
Starting Jan 1, 2025, with the passing SB 1400, once a defendant is declared MIST, the court must hold a hearing to determine if the defendant is eligible for mental health diversion. The most common reason that a defendant is not eligible for diversion programs is that they are not not deemed stable enough to manage at the community level of care. If the defendant is not eligible for diversion, the court is then required to hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant can be referred to assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), conservatorship, or the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court program. And, if the defendant does not qualify for any of these services, the case is dismissed. Since both AOT the CARE Court also require the patient’s consent and active engagement, these are unlikely to be viable options for the sickest patients who cannot accept other MH diversion programs.
While in many ways steps in the right direction, in our current fragmented system of care for individuals with serious mental illness, the 2022 and 2025 change widened the cracks for our chronically ill and unhoused patients to fall through. These individuals are still not receiving adequate care for their mental illness in the community where they would need long-term comprehensive services, including supportive housing, to establish real stability. They continue to cycle through the legal system where they are detained for 4-12 weeks to go through the competency process during which time their mental health often plummets and they lose any program connections they might have been establishing in the community (housing waitlist, outpatient mental health, substance use rehabilitation, social security benefits). Then, by refusing treatment, they forfeit their opportunity to be diverted to voluntary community settings and thus remain longer incarcerated.
Of note, also starting this month, legislation (SB 132318) authored by Senator Menjivar (SD 22, Van Nuys/SF Valley), allows judges to evaluate diversion-eligible FIST defendants “to determine if it is in the interests of justice to restore the defendant to competence” and consider granting diversion without attempting restoration. Once again, while this is a critical step toward recognizing the needs of our patients to get comprehensive treatment and support, it remains to be seen how this will impact treatment adherence and critical tools like the involuntary medications orders.
Diversion of individuals with serious mental illness
In Los Angeles County, the Office of Diversion and Reentry (ODR), through programs established by Kristen Ochoa, MD, MPH, and others, identifies individuals with serious mental illness in the country’s largest jail system and links them with housing and mental health services in the community. Overall, they have diverted >12,000 individuals from the jails into the community. The bulk of ODR’s work started in 2016 with permanent supportive housing and intensive case management for individuals with felony cases and serious mental illness to be formally diverted via probation from the jails. Over time, this work developed to work with patients formally declared FIST to divert them into community-based restoration programs.19 Likewise, the MIST diversion program has successfully diverted >3,700 individuals from the jails into community programs and had a rate of rearrest within 6 months as low as 13.3% & 15.9% in 2020 & 2021.20,21
Los Angeles County ODR programs have been successful by many metrics and have been able to work with individuals with high severity mental illness. Nonetheless, ODR struggles with some of the same issues as the lower-severity diversion programs. Namely, patients must be able to actively participate in the community services. While ODR does have an inpatient unit at Olive View Medical Center devoted to stabilizing individuals before transition to the community, those beds are limited. Individuals with serious mental illness are spending fewer days incarcerated overall but the revolving door continues to turn.
Case Study – John
To illustrate the process, we can follow John, a middle-aged man with schizophrenia who committed a misdemeanor. When he was approached in his cell at Twin Towers, John said through the enforced glass window in the door, “I’m fine. I don’t take medication,” before he was distracted again by the voices and his face went blank. The psychiatrist attempted to re-engage, “You took medication when you were here before and it seemed to help.” But he had already turned away from the door to head back to his concrete bunk. John was naked, it was cold, his clothes were stuffed in the toilet, and there were ripped-up food containers and food remnants spread across the floor. Over the next few minutes, while the psychiatrist continued to attempt engagement, John could be seen talking to himself at the other end of the cell.
John has been detained for misdemeanor vandalism. Both inside the jail and when he is on the street, he is responding to internal stimuli, expresses bizarre delusions, and demonstrates disorganized behavior and paranoia. The only way that he is consistently offered any treatment for his psychotic disorder is when he has been detained on accusations of committing crimes. John is not targeted by the LA County Rapid Diversion Program because his symptoms are too severe for their programming and level of care. For starters, to participate in RDP, the public defender must be able to communicate with the defendant. John has not willingly left his cell to come to go to the courthouse or otherwise speak with his attorney. Understandably, his attorney requested that John’s competence be assessed.
For John, it took five weeks to be declared MIST (average 3-6 weeks) at which time his case was automatically referred to the LA County ODR. ODR took three weeks to determine that John was not suitable for any of their programs because his symptoms were too acute for their level of care and John could not agree to their program requirements. The judge heard his case two weeks later to determine which of the next referrals would be appropriate. By that point, John had been in a jail cell by himself for two months without treatment. He was coaxed out to shower and move cells once, but he expressed opposition toward the deputies when they moved him to a clean cell. After that, he was deemed hostile and no further attempts were made to bring him out for programming.
Previously during a different period of incarceration, when John was charged with a felony and then found IST, the judge granted an involuntary medication order (IMO). The IMO from the court, in combination with the detainment setting, coerced John into accepting antipsychotic medication both at the jail and at the state hospital. With treatment, his thoughts organized enough for him to be deemed restored to competency. His case was adjudicated and he was released on probation. This time, John has the same symptoms but is refusing medications and there is no IMO.
The level of John’s symptoms and his inability to care for himself could render him gravely disabled under LPS criteria and appropriate for admission to the LPS-designated inpatient psychiatric unit embedded within the LA County jail. Over the last couple years, there have been between 20-40 patients on the waitlist for this 30-bed unit. When he finally gets admitted and he continues to decline treatment, there will likely be a Riese hearing to request an involuntary medication order. Then, he will be treated and recover just well enough to return to the jail housing, but not long enough to participate actively in his treatment. Upon returning to jail housing, he again starts to refuse medications because the IMO from the LPS-designated inpatient unit only applies when he is admitted there, it does not extend back to the jail.
Since ODR did not accept John, the judge now has 3 options: 1) refer him to CARE Court, 2) order an assessment for AOT, or 3) order the public guardian to investigate whether John is appropriate for LPS conservatorship. The conservatorship option involves a many months long process including time for the public guardian to investigate and decide whether to pursue conservatorship, the conservatorship hearing process, and then time for the public guardian to find a suitable placement. (Disability Rights covered this process in damning detail in March 2024.22) Given that John has consistently refused treatment, it seems unlikely that he will voluntarily accept AOT or elect to create a CARE plan. If none of these 3 options is viable, then John’s charges are dismissed and he will be released to the streets without any treatment after 2-3 months of solitarily decompensating in jail. These are not good options.
Conclusions
California has been taking steps in the right direction toward treatment instead of incarceration for individuals with mental illness. But, without a full continuum of care in the community that includes permanent supportive housing, adequate crisis response and pre-booking diversion, and early post-booking diversion into supportive programs, our patients with serious mental illness consistently fall through the cracks. In fact, some of our patients are now detained in jail even longer without essential treatment to have official hearings on their appropriateness for voluntary mental health programs which they are too ill to take part in. And, the longer they go without necessary medication, the less able they will be to participate in any voluntary program. It is unacceptable to incarcerate ill people without the necessary medical treatment and then release them even more vulnerable than before.
Many psychiatrists without formal forensic training are providing critically necessary care to currently or formerly incarcerated individuals in “correctional” and community settings. As mental health diversion programs have grown around the country, judges are increasingly called upon to assess and make decisions based on evidence surrounding psychiatric disorders and the need for psychiatrists outside of carceral settings to interface with the judicial system has dramatically grown.
Updates from Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) Committee
Diversion for those with severe mental illness out of the carceral system is the main focus of the SCPS ATI committee which can be achieved on many different levels. The Judges & Psychiatrists Leadership Initiative (JPLI) seeks to provide judges around the county with essential training and understanding about mental and behavioral health while learning about the organization and limits of the justice system.23 This year, the JPLI kicked off in California and held 2 sessions – in LA and San Francisco – with Dr. Bindra (co-author) and Judge James Bianco from LA Superior Court serving as trainers. The audiences were a mix of judges from both criminal and mental health courts. The training provided judges with basic information about symptoms of mental illness and substance use disorders as well as introduced the different ideas for alternatives to incarceration. For those who are acutely ill and arrested for misdemeanors (low level crimes), there is a net zero benefit of jail—not from a social, societal or psychiatric perspective.
For us to make diversion more attractive than incarceration, it starts with judges. The JPLI has been in other states for many years and they are seeing the fruits of their labors. Miami-Dade County has made significant progress with Judge Leifman’s heroic efforts to make diversion the common language among courts. Although LA County is almost 5 times the population of Miami-Dade, as JPLI grows and takes hold in California, perhaps we can also make diversion the default.
There are exciting plans for JPLI CA in 2025. Our trainers have expanded with psychiatrists Yelena Kolboskaya, MD and Dr. Wood (co-author) completing the “train the trainer” session as well as Judge Amy Guerra from the Fresno Superior Court who joins Judge Bianco as our 2 judicial representatives in California. The next trainings are being planned as we speak. Stay tuned.
Additionally, Drs. Bindra and Wood will be presenting about this topic with judges at the upcoming American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting in Los Angeles in May 2025. The session will provide participants with information about the scope of the mental health crisis in the US carceral system, including a brief introduction to the competency process. General principles and successful examples of mental health diversion programs will be introduced. Both judges and psychiatrists will describe how they can work together to improve mental health understanding in the judicial system. Participants will be provided with specific examples of the kind of mental health training that has been found helpful by judges and ways that they may be able to engage in training in the future.
References
- Caudell-Feagan M, Huh K, Horowitz J, et al. More Than 1 in 9 Adults With Co-Occurring Mental Illness and Substance Use Disorders Are Arrested Annually. The Pew Charitable Trusts; 2023. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/02/over-1-in-9-people-with-co-occurring-mental-illness-and-substance-use-disorders-arrested-annually
- Alexander M. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Tenth anniversary edition. The New Press; 2020. https://newjimcrow.com/
- Barnard AV. Conservatorship: Inside California’s System of Coercion and Care for Mental Illness. 1st ed. Columbia University Press; 2023. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/conservatorship/9780231210256
- Bindra RK. LA County Jails: De facto Mental Health Facilities. Southern California Psychiatrist. 2023;72(4):6-8.
- Steadman HJ, Osher FC, Robbins PC, Case B, Samuels S. Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness Among Jail Inmates. PS. 2009;60(6):761-765. doi:10.1176/ps.2009.60.6.761
- Holliday S, Pace N, Gowensmith N, et al. Estimating the Size of the Los Angeles County Jail Mental Health Population Appropriate for Release into Community Services. RAND Corporation; 2020. doi:10.7249/RR4328
- Appel O, Stephens D, Shadravan SM, Key J, Ochoa K. Differential Incarceration by Race-Ethnicity and Mental Health Service Status in the Los Angeles County Jail System. PS. 2020;71(8):843-846. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201900429
- Munetz MR, Griffin PA. Use of the Sequential Intercept Model as an Approach to Decriminalization of People With Serious Mental Illness. PS. 2006;57(4):544-549. doi:10.1176/ps.2006.57.4.544
- Mills SD, Coffey T, Newcomer JW, Proctor SL, Leifman S, Hassmiller Lich K. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Criminal Mental Health Project: Improving Access to Mental Health Treatment in Miami-Dade County. PS. 2020;71(10):1091-1094. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201900572
- Leifman S, Coffey T. Jail diversion: the Miami model. CNS Spectr. 2020;25(5):659-666. doi:10.1017/S1092852920000127
- Diversion of Individuals with Mental Disorders. Vol PC § 1001.36.; 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1001.36.&lawCode=PEN
- Judicial Branch of California. Mental Health Diversion Data Summary Report 2024. Published online June 14, 2024. https://courts.ca.gov/publication/mental-health-diversion-data-summary-report-2024
- Los Angeles County JCOD. Rapid Diversion Program (RDP). Justice, Care and Opportunities Department (JCOD). https://jcod.lacounty.gov/program/rapid-diversion-program-rdp/
- Kim C, County of Los Angeles. Justice Care and Opportunities Department’s Rapid Diversion Program Achieves Milestone of 2,000 Case Diversions. January 25, 2024. https://lacounty.gov/2024/01/25/justice-care-and-opportunities-departments-rapid-diversion-program-achieves-milestone-of-2000-case-diversions/
- Holliday SB, Marsolais E, Matthews S. Process Evaluation of the Los Angeles County Rapid Diversion Program: A Pretrial Mental Health Diversion Program. RAND Corporation; 2024. Accessed January 1, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3385-1.html
- Kois LE, Potts H, Cox J, Zapf P. Court-reported competence to proceed data across the United States. Law and Human Behavior. 2024;48(3):182-202. doi:10.1037/lhb0000565
- Bindra RK. Guilty of a Mental Illness: The Incompetent to Stand Trial System. Southern California Psychiatrist. 2023;71(10):4-6.
- Menjivar C. Criminal Procedure: Competence to Stand Trial.; 2024. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1323
- Ochoa K, Appel O, Nguyen V, Kim E. Decriminalization in action: lessons from the Los Angeles model. CNS Spectr. 2020;25(5):561-565. doi:10.1017/S1092852919001561
- Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. Overall ODR Data. OFFICE OF DIVERSION AND REENTRY. https://dhs.lacounty.gov/office-of-diversion-and-reentry/our-services/office-of-diversion-and-reentry/odr-data/
- Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. MIST Program Data. OFFICE OF DIVERSION AND REENTRY. https://dhs.lacounty.gov/office-of-diversion-and-reentry/our-services/office-of-diversion-and-reentry/mist-program-data/
- Disability Rights California. “STUCK”: Los Angeles County’s Abuse and Neglect of People on Mental Health Conservatorships in Jail and Locked Psychiatric Facilities. Disability Rights California; 2024. Accessed March 13, 2024. https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/report/stuck-los-angeles-countys-abuse-and-neglect-of-people-on-mental-health-conservatorships
- Thomaidou MA, Berryessa CM. A jury of scientists: Formal education in biobehavioral sciences reduces the odds of punitive criminal sentencing. Behavioral Sci & The Law. 2022;40(6):787-817. doi:10.1002/bsl.2588
[a] In case you thought this problem was behind us: in November 2024, a majority of Californians voted to continue to allow forced labor (aka slavery or involuntary servitude) in our prisons and jails by voting down Prop 6, despite it having no funded/organized opposition. Additionally, Californians overwhelming supported Prop 36, the “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act,” to increase sentences for certain drug offenses and petty theft convictions.
[b] Of note, there is no consistent clinical difference between FIST and MIST patients. In fact, MIST patients are just as likely to meet criteria for grave disability in the jail. The criminal court method for determining Involuntary Medication Order (IMO) status does not align with California mental health law (LPS).

Class Action Lawsuit Against the Maker of Prominent Cannabis Vape Products:
by Timothy Pylko, MD
As a psychiatrist who has been treating patients on an outpatient, inpatient and residential level of care for the past 38 years I have become alarmed by the increasing presentation of acute psychotic episodes associated with cannabis use. Whether these emergencies are from cannabis induced psychosis or an exacerbation of an underlying psychotic spectrum disorder or psychosis vulnerability, it is clear to me that we are in a public health crisis that is particularly affecting adolescents and young adults in California since the legalization of recreational cannabis use in 2016 by the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act”. Certainly in my view decriminalizing cannabis use has been far more beneficial to society but as highlighted in the title of the Act it implied an certain level of regulation and control. It also mandated that like alcohol, the legal age of cannabis use in California was 21. In reality the State has not provided adequate oversight of cannabis use especially with the proliferation of cannabis products driven by private enterprise. Vaping cannabis has escalated especially amongst adolescents and young adults. THC concentrates that not only contain delta 9 THC but may also have delta 8 and delta 10 THC average concentrations in some preparations around 54-69% and can be as high as 95%. It should be noted average THC concentrations in marijuana from 20-30 years ago was 2-3%. What we are seeing now is a very different drug experience.
Since decriminalization, there has been a cultural myth often embraced by adolescents and youth that as a “legal” and “natural” substance it has to be safer than pharmaceuticals. Anecdotal evidence suggest that many adolescents and young adults have turned to cannabis use, including the growing popularity of vaping to deal with the rampant increase of depression and anxiety that appears to be associated with the isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To be sure these are very complex phenomenon. What has been increasingly evident is the risk of Cannabis Induced Psychosis (CIP) or also known Cannabis Associated Psychotic Symptoms (CAPS) has been skyrocketing. Symptoms can include hallucination, delusions, disorganized thoughts, agitation or anxiety and feelings of depersonalization. The period of highest vulnerability to the psychotogenic effects of heavy cannabis exposure is from early adolescence until around the age of 25. This correlates with a significant period of prefrontal cortical development critical to mature executive functioning.
Though legal cannabis is provided through licensed dispensaries, State regulation appears to be mainly built around quality of the ingredients rather than potency and delivery of cannabis products. There is are limited legal standards on how cannabis products are advertised and promoted. It turns out this is an area that is a political “hot potato” that California politicians are reluctant to take on according to June Bashant, lead attorney for Rouda, Feder, Tietje & McGuinn who with two other law firms filed a class act lawsuit in Marin County Superior Court on 5/29/24 and in Los Angeles Superior Court on 8/27/24 against Stiizy, which is a prominent brand of cannabis vape products. It has been argued that current laws focus heavily on taxation and licensing, often neglecting consumer safety and public health education. The suit alleges that the company failed to adequately warn consumers of the risks of high potency cannabis products, including the potential for psychosis. The plaintiffs, many of whom are young adults, claim they suffered severe mental health consequences including psychotic episodes and psychiatric hospitalizations after using Stiizy vape products.
Key allegations include:
-
-
- Failure to Warn: The lawsuit asserts that Stiizy did not provide sufficient warnings about the risks of high potency cannabis products, particularly for vulnerable populations such as adolescents and young adults who are at higher risk of adverse effects, and individuals with a history of mental illness or a family history of mental illness.
- Aggressive Marketing and Negligent Misrepresentation: Plaintiffs argue that Stiizy’s marketing targeted young consumers with bright packaging, social media campaigns, and influencer endorsements, downplaying the risks associated with their products.
- Negligence: The defendants had a duty of reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, assembling, inspecting, testing, packaging, labeling, marketing, advertising, promoting, supplying, distributing, and/or selling their products to avoid harm to users of their products.
- Strict Product Liability- Design Defect: The defendants products were defective in design in that they did not perform as an ordinary consumer would have expected.
- Fraudulent Concealment: The defendants failed to disclose certain facts about the nature and safety of their products.
- Breach of Implied Warranty: The defendants marketed these products to serve as a safe means of alleviating anxiety, promoting relaxation and stimulating creativity.
- Fraud: That the defendants fraudulently misrepresented the safety of their products.
-
This class action lawsuit could set a precedent for how high potency cannabis products are regulated and marketed in California. If successful, the case could lead to stricter regulation on THC potency, labeling requirements, and advertising practices. Ms. Bashant shared with me that they are using similar strategies that led to the successful litigation against Juul nicotine products.
One outcome could lead to stronger warning labels, THC potency limits set by the State to mitigate the risk of adverse effects and greater investment in public health campaigns about the risks of high potency cannabis, particularly in adolescents and young adults. It may take increased liability with more stringent legal and financial accountability for manufacturers to address the safety of their products to have an impact on this public health crisis.
Ms. Bashant shared that the lawsuit is still accepting more plaintiffs. She can be reached at jbashant@rftmlaw.com. The other litigants include Sarah London and Miriam Marks of Lieff, Cabraser, Hermann & Bernstein, LLP as well as Sandra Ribera Speed of Ribera Law Firm, APC.
It is hard to know whether class action lawsuits will be successful in mobilizing legislation to protect society from the explosion of serious mental health problems associated with the unchecked commercial development and marketing of extremely high potency cannabis. Practicing in the field, I can see the unintended consequences of decriminalization without appropriate regulation has led to disastrous effects on the lives of many young people in our State.
Libby, Stuyt, M.D. “Problems with our High Potency THC Marijuana from the perspective of an Addiction Psychiatrist, Colorado Substance Abuse Trend and Task Force (May 1, 2020)
Schooler,Tabea; Baldwin,Jessie R.; Pingault,Jean-Baptiste; “Assessing Rates and Predictors of Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Symptoms Across Observational, Experimental and Medical Research” Nature Mental Health 2, 865-876 (2024)
Schoeler,Tabea; Ferris,Jason; Winstock,Adam R “Rates and Correlates of Cannabis-Associated Psychotic Symptoms in over 230,000 People Who Use Cannabis” Translational Psychiatry 12, Article number: 369 (2022)
McDonald, André J; Kurdyak,Paul; Jürgen,Rehm; Roerecke, Michael; and Bonny,Susan J; “Age-Dependent Association of Cannabis Use with Risk of Psychotic Disorder” Psychological Medicine, Volume 54, Issue 11, August 2024 pp. 2926-2936

Welcome New SCPS Members!
We are proud to spotlight some of our newest members:
Cathy Banh, MD – Resident-Fellow Member

Cathy Banh was born and raised in Southern California. She attended UCLA for her undergraduate education where she worked in life sciences education, student affairs, and with CSEC foster youths. While attending UCR School of Medicine she served as a class representative, student body Vice President and contributed to the Health Equity, Social Justice, & Anti-Racism curriculum thread. Before finishing medical school, Cathy completed the UC-LEND training program to improve the health of individuals with neurodevelopmental and related disabilities. She stayed at her home program to pursue Psychiatry. As a UCR Psychiatry resident, she serves as a class representatives and co-leads the Diversity Advisory Committee. She is passionate about social justice, disability advocacy, and reproductive justice. Professional interests include academic medicine as well as child and adolescent psychiatry.
Jimmy Bazzy, MD – Resident-Fellow Member

Dr. Jimmy Bazzy is a fourth-year psychiatry resident at the UCLA/Olive View Psychiatry residency training program, currently serving as the chief resident of psychotherapy. His clinical work focuses on outpatient medication management and longitudinal psychodynamic psychotherapy, primarily serving underserved populations within the San Fernando Valley with limited access to quality mental health care. As an educator, he plays a key role in training junior residents in psychodynamic psychotherapy. He has a particular interest in the transitional age youth population and has helped start a specialty clinic at Olive View Medical Center specializing in this population. His clinical interests draw from psychodynamic psychotherapy, medical humanities, and technology, exploring topics such as the impact of social media on mental health and the psychic processes underlying creativity and artistic production.
All new SCPS members are invited to provide Membership Spotlight materials. (Providing these materials is optional.)

November Council Highlights
by Gillian Friedman, MD
Council Highlights
November 14, 2024
Zoom Meeting 7-9 pm
- CALL TO ORDER – 7:04 Dr. Rees
Assembly Report – Dr. Red
- Highlighted leadership and productive actions of recent Assembly meeting. Extensive notes from Assembly in Dropbox as attachments, including process of Assembly, and progress of action paper to Joint Reference Committee (JRC), which decides what Action Papers are ready to go to the board and what needs more information/more re-writing/send to committee for assistance. Highlights: 1) bidirectional communication between district branch (DB) and APA; 2) Opportunities/process to put forth members to APA leadership (APA committee) roles.
- 6 Action papers came from Area 6, 4 passed. 3 Action Papers from SCPS. Stimulant paper (authored by Dr. Wood) passed easily. Resident representation paper was debated on floor – ultimately was passed. Dr. Red encourages members to write Action Papers (next deadline March 20) and to come to Assembly Reps. Dr. Red briefly explained process of Action Papers coming to Assembly.
- Paper to be published regarding Action Papers, why outcome occurred, why some are stalled.
- Area 6 had 100% of participants give to the PAC
Committee Reports
- Child and Adolescents
- SCPS/SCSCAP Joint Meeting Sun, Jan 26, 2025 11am via Zoom– Dr. Emily Wood and Dr. Siddarth Puri will be speaking on the Stimulant Shortage Crisis
- American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry (ASAP) – founded in 1967 to support research and education into adolescent and young adult mental health. Membership open to all psychiatrists. Many members are also members of APA and AACAP. Review of prior APA presentations. President Dr. Barclay emailed and asked if any of our SCPS members would be interested in participating as contributors or discussants. Interested in a “joint sideline meeting” or “joint reception at the APA”
- Unhoused Workgroup
Working on proposals to CSAP (e.g. CARE Court reform)
Stimulant Task Force
Growing group – joined with local AACAP and American Academy of Pediatrics. Meetings with Steinberg, Kennedy Forum, APA Gov’t Relations. Working on how to approach as a parity issue. Taking note of DEA stance that “stimulants are the next opioid epidemic,” based on number of prescriptions, not science of difference between stimulants and opioids. Weighing in on the extension of Ryan-Haight and telepsychiatry. Action paper at APA Assembly went through without any changes —
Private Practice
Pertinent working topics: stimulant shortage, change in teleprescribing rules, access to care issues. Discussion that members would like to be on insurance panels, but administrative and other barriers are very cumbersome. Dr. Goldenberg was on panel with DEA, asked if anyone has considered rescheduling stimulants. DEA is waiting to hear what Trump administration is going to do.
- Diversity and Culture. Working on getting applications open for DMURR – extended, have contacted all residency programs to solicit additional applications. Working on George L. Mallory Diversity, Culture, and Social Justice Award – sent out one-page description trying to get applicants. Both of these topics also put in newsletter. Discussed potential of another action paper about democratizing/transparency RE: how one gets on APA committees. Still at a standstill RE: Moynihan Report action paper (previously passed Assembly). (Assistance at this point from Assembly Rep Dr. Red in explaining current status of the Moynihan action paper — has come to JRC, there is an ask to rewrite based on feedback from APA’s Council on Minority Mental Health. Per Assembly Rep Heather Silverman, Council on Minority Mental Health is forming a workgroup on how to take a position on historical government reports – suggests that APA reps will be able to speak to Speaker-Elect about it when meeting in December).
- Alternatives to Incarceration
Meeting with Senator Stern’s staff about “part 2” of bill RE: treatment for individuals incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor charges (concern that people are sitting in jail because their illness presents barrier to consent for treatment, and thus can’t get treatment that would get them out – i.e., do not have the involuntary hearing process that is available for those incompetent to stand trial for felony charges).
Access to Care
Hosted program for SCPS members at the end of October RE: successful strategies for working with insurance, using clozapine, and using LAIs in private practice. New subcommittee for access to acute/subacute beds.
APA Representation Task Force
Dr Red says moving in the right direction.
RFM (Resident-Fellow)
Career day coming up Dec 8th at 9:30 at Kaiser West LA – speakers for morning panel (including public psychiatry by Dr. Wood, financial and investment strategies by Dr. Zeb Little). Exhibitors in afternoon. Free for APA members, $25 for non-members. RFM looking to have committee for members, ideally to get reps from all training programs in SCPS area. Dr. Malik helping to compile/update contact list for training programs.
- Government Affairs Committee (GAC) Report – Dr. Shaner
- GAC Resolution (passed):
RESOLVED, that the SCPS Council contributes the full budgeted amount to the CSAP PAC for 2024.
RESOLVED, that the SCPS Council requests information about financial contributions from each DB for 2024 and 2025 to support decisions about future contributions
- Following CA committee assignments and looking at who to form relationship with.
- Rachel Johnson, APA Gov’t Affairs, has begun some analysis post-election (coherent first step for mental health priorities).
- Behavioral health expansion is “last bipartisan issue.” Some nuances — Republicans on national level more responsive to elimination of IMD exclusion (Fed gov’t does not contribute to long-term hospital beds – states do not get the Fed financial contribution). Expansion of hospital-based services, right to treatment, which post-election may be aligned with SCPS priorities. Prop 35 passage in CA limits MediCal cuts.
- Treatment Advocacy Center – Has not previously had connection with CSAP, but policy often aligns. Nationally based, works with NAMI in N Cal and helps them coordinate legislative relationships. Would be interested in working with CSAP, perhaps with SCPS locally.
- Treasurer’s Report — Dr. Wood
- October Financials and Cash on Hand Report
Dr. Wood reviewed various financial metrics, year-to-date. Overall, SCPS is in good fiscal health.
VII. President Elect Report – Dr. Kelly
- Newsletter Updates were provided.
- Nominating Committee: first meeting is Nov 19, 2024
- The NAMI meeting will occur in January, date TBD. List of 2024 NAMI participants shared.
VIII. President’s Report – Dr. Rees
- Debriefed Dr. Wills (APA CEO) Visit.
- Advocacy Talks – reviewed completed and on-the-radar programs
- APA Reception Mon 5/19/25, 4-6pm – may also get SYSAL and other CA DB contributions
- Executive Director Review – “GPA 4.0”. Specific Advice: “Never retire.” Motion to support new health insurance benefit (switch to Kaiser, based on Mindi’s selection) passed. Salary increase COLA (based on CPI-W) + proposed bonus passed.
IX. Membership Report – Dr. Ijeaku
Membership Report
Membership report was approved
Adjournment – Dr. Rees
Next meeting is December 12, 2024

SCPS Career Day 2024
SCPS Career Day for Psychiatrists was held on Sunday, December 9th at Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles. Thank you to all of our enthusiastic attendees for a great turn out!
A huge thank you to our employer exhibitors: Adelpha Psychiatric Group, Inc., Calif Department of State Hospitals, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, Mindful Health Solutions, Mindpath Health, PRMS – Professional Risk Management Services, Roads Foundation, Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, and Traditions Behavioral Health. Special thanks to PRMS for sponsoring the lunch!
Thank you moderators – Resident-Fellow Representatives on Council: So Min Lim, DO and Justin Nguyen, DO.
And thank you to our speakers! – Emily Wood, MD (Public Psychiatry), Matthew Goldenberg, DO (Private Practice), Laura Halpin, MD (Managed Care), Victoria Huang, MD (Small Group Practice), Tina Thu-Ha Nguyen, MD (Psychoanalytic Practice) and J. Zeb Little, MD, PhD (Financial and Investment Strategies).

SCPS Life Member Contributions
SCPS would like to thank the following dues-exempt members for their generous and gracious contributions made during 2024. These contributions are appreciated and well used.
Leslie Alhadeff, M.D.
Daniel Auerbach, M.D.
M. Christina Benson, M.D.
Basil Bernstein, M.D.
Michael Blumenfield, M.D.
Thomas Brod, M.D.
Murray Brown, M.D.
Rodney Burgoyne, M.D. (bequeathed)
Richard Deamer, M.D.
Daniel Fast, M.D.
Raymond Friedman, M.D.
Susan Fukushima, M.D.
Bruce Gainsley, M.D.
Michael Gales, M.D.
Elizabeth Galton, M.D.
Irvin Godofsky, M.D.
Armen Goenjian, M.D.
Jacquelyn Green, M.D.
Brian Jacks, M.D.
Eleanor Lavretsky, M.D.
Gregory Leong, M.D.
Ira Lesser, M.D.
King Mendelsohn, M.D.
Samuel Miles, M.D.
J Neil Ortego, M.D.
Richard Palmer, M.D.
Marta Pariewski, M.D.
Norma Pariewski, M.D.
Robert Pasnau, M.D.
Charles Portney, M.D.
Robert Rubin, M.D.
Lee Sadja, M.D.
Ernest Schreiber, M.D.
J. Mark Thompson, M.D.
Louis Weisberg, M.D.
John Wells, M.D.
Samuel Wilson, M.D.
Robert Winston, M.D.
Stuart Wolman, M.D.

George L. Mallory Diversity, Culture and Social Justice Award Guidelines
Please see the following guidelines to apply for the George L Mallory Diversity, Culture and Social Justice Award.
Please send materials to socalpsychiatric@gmail.com
Award Description: The Diversity and Culture committee is very excited to announce the George L. Mallory Diversity, Culture and Social Justice Award. This award recognizes a Southern California psychiatrist for their exceptional contribution to advocacy, teaching, research and/or leadership aimed at countering structural racism and advancing our understanding of culture and diversity in psychiatry.
This memorial award is named in honor of Dr. George L. Mallory, a prominent educator, psychiatrist and civil rights activist who dedicated his life to treating the underserved in Los Angeles County. Dr. Mallory was one of the first staff members of Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center, a president of the Black Psychiatrists of Southern California, and the recipient of numerous awards. The purpose of the George L. Mallory Award is to honor current psychiatrists who are continuing this important work in reshaping public mental health to be more inclusive and equitable to all. The Committee encourages SCPS members to send in nominations (self-nominations accepted) for consideration for this award. For more information including past awardees please visit: https://www.socalpsych.org/about/diversity-culture-committee/
Application opens: November 1, 2024
Application closes: January 15, 2025
Nomination Process: Self-nominations and 2nd party nominations welcomed
Application Requirements: Description of the nature of your commitment to justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (1-2 pages). A copy of your CV (1-5 pages).
Selection Criteria:
● Award recipient should demonstrate a historical contribution and ongoing commitment to advocacy, teaching, research and/or leadership aimed at countering structural racism and advancing our understanding of culture and diversity in psychiatry
● Award recipient must be a psychiatrist serving in the SCPS regions
● Award recipient must submit their application materials by the published deadline in order to be considered
Award Recipient selected by: February 25, 2025
Awards Ceremony: Spring 2025. The award recipient is strongly encouraged to attend the SCPS Installation and Awards Ceremony to be recognized in person.

Information about SCPS Dues and Tax Deductibility
Your continued membership is of great value to SCPS and the California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP).
For 2025, 28.2% of your dues will go towards direct advocacy services. The remaining 71.8% may be written off as a business expense. Please consult your accountant regarding deductibility.
For 2024, 25% of your dues went towards direct advocacy services. The remaining 75% may be written off as a business expense. Please consult your accountant regarding deductibility.
We know that membership is a choice and we thank you for choosing to support your profession, your patients, and your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Ijeoma Ijeaku, M.D.
Chair, Membership Committee

The Southern California PSYCHIATRIST
ALL EDITORIAL MATERIALS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSLETTER MUST BE RECEIVED BY SCPS NO LATER THAN THE 1ST OF THE MONTH.
NO AUGUST PUBLICATION. ALL PAID ADVERTISEMENTS AND PRESS RELEASES MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN THE 1ST OF THE MONTH.
SCPS website address: www.socalpsych.org
© Copyright 2024 by Southern California Psychiatric Society
Southern California PSYCHIATRIST is published monthly, except August by the:
Southern California Psychiatric Society
P.O. Box 10023
Palm Desert, CA 92255
(310) 815-3650
Permission to quote or report any part of this publication must be obtained in advance from the Editor.
Opinions expressed throughout this publication are those of the writers and, unless specifically identified as a Society policy, do not state the opinion or position of the Society or the Editorial Committee. The Editor should be informed at the time of the Submission of any article that has been submitted to or published in another publication.
Disclaimer
Advertisements in this newsletter do not represent endorsement by the Southern California Psychiatric Society (SCPS), and contain information submitted for advertising which has not been verified for accuracy by the SCPS.
SCPS Officers
President – Galya Rees, M.D.
President-Elect – Patrick Kelly, M.D.
Secretary – Gillian Friedman, M.D.
Treasurer – Emily Wood, M.D.
Treasurer-Elect – Laura Halpin, M.D.
Councillors by Region (Terms Expiring)
Inland – Daniel Fast, M.D. (2027); Kayla Fisher, M.D. (2027)
San Fernando Valley – Danielle Chang, M.D. (2025); Matthew Markis, D.O. (2026)
San Gabriel Valley/Los Angeles-East – Reba Bindra, M.D. (2026); Timothy Pylko, M.D. (2026)
Santa Barbara – Anu Bodla, M.D. (2027)
South Bay – Steven Allen, M.D. (2025)
South L.A. County – Amy Woods, M.D. (2026)
Ventura – Joseph Vlaskovits, M.D. (2026)
West Los Angeles – Haig Goenjian, M.D. (2027); Tanya Josic, D.O. (2027); Lloyd Lee, D.O. (2027); Alex Lin, M.D. (2026)
ECP Representative – Yelena Koldobskaya, M.D. (2025)
ECP Deputy Representative – Manal Khan, M.D. (2026)
RFM Representative – So Min Lim, D.O. (2025); Justin Nguyen, D.O. (2025)
MURR Representative – Ruqayyah Malik, M.D. (2025)
MURR Deputy Representative – Rubi Luna, M.D. (2025)
Past Presidents – Ijeoma Ijeaku, M.D.; J Zeb Little, M.D.; Matthew Goldenberg, D.O.
Federal Legislative Representative – Emily Wood, M.D.
State Legislative Representative – Roderick Shaner, M.D.
Public Affairs Representative – Christina Ford, M.D.
Assembly Representatives – Ijeoma Ijeaku, M.D. (2027); Anita Red, M.D. (2028); Heather Silverman, M.D.(2026); C. Freeman, M.D. (2025)
Executive Director – Mindi Thelen
Desktop Publishing – Tim Thelen
SCPS Newsletter Editor – Patrick Kelly, M.D