State filings say Ariana Dillman showed signs of impairment during a June 2025 shift and refused a requested drug test.
SAN DIEGO, Calif. — A Solana Beach emergency room doctor, Ariana Dillman, has been accused by California regulators of showing signs of impairment during a June 2025 shift in San Diego County, but she is still allowed to treat patients under strict practice restrictions.
The case has drawn attention because the Medical Board of California moved the matter into formal discipline on March 5, 2026, without fully pulling Dillman out of practice. The accusation alleges on-duty impairment, a refused drug test and substance use severe enough to affect safe care, while leaving key details, including the hospital and any patient harm, unresolved in public records.
According to the board’s accusation, Dillman was working an emergency room shift in June 2025 when supervisors or co-workers saw what the filing described as “behaviors consistent with intoxication or impairment.” The accusation says those signs included slurred speech, droopy eyelids and erratic behavior. Regulators also say Dillman refused a requested drug test during the incident. The board did not identify the hospital in the public records reviewed for this article, but the accusation says her employer suspended her clinical privileges after the shift. Public board records later showed an eight-page accusation filed March 5, 2026, placing the allegations into California’s formal disciplinary system while leaving the larger case unresolved.
The accusation further alleges Dillman “has used controlled substances, dangerous drugs, or alcoholic beverages to the extent such use impairs ability to practice medicine safely.” State records cited in local reporting say a psychiatrist later diagnosed her with alcohol use disorder. Regulators have not publicly identified in the retrieved materials what substance or substances they believe were involved, whether any patient suffered physical harm, or whether a toxicology result was obtained after the refused test. The board also has not publicly named the employer that suspended her privileges. Dillman and her attorney did not return requests for comment made by KGTV, the San Diego television station that first detailed the latest board action.
What patients can be told in emergency settings is narrower than many people assume. California’s Patient’s Right to Know Act requires notice when physicians are put on probation for certain serious misconduct, including drug or alcohol abuse that impairs safe practice. But the law exempts emergency rooms, urgent care visits and other unscheduled care. In other words, even when a doctor’s status must be disclosed in most settings, emergency patients may not get advance notice because they usually do not know which physician will appear at bedside. That legal backdrop helps explain why discipline involving emergency medicine can leave the public with only partial and delayed information.
The public record also shows how California handles cases like this. Board materials describe an accusation as the formal charging document, not a final finding. Until there is a settlement or decision, the filing reflects allegations that a physician can contest. That distinction matters because it leaves Dillman in a narrow middle ground: the state has publicly accused her of unsafe substance use on the job, yet it has not reached a final ruling on whether discipline beyond the current restrictions is warranted. Michele Monserratt-Ramos, a patient advocate with Consumer Watchdog, said the case fits a pattern she has criticized for years. “There should really be stricter standards for physicians that are found under the influence while in a hospital setting while practicing,” she said.
If Dillman contests the accusation, the case can move to an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge under the board’s published disciplinary process. The judge would write a proposed decision, and a board panel could adopt it, reduce the penalty or increase it after reviewing the record. Board guidance says many accusations settle before a full hearing, but contested matters can still go forward with sworn testimony and documentary evidence. As of Thursday, the public results reviewed for this article did not show a final decision, a dismissal or a published hearing outcome. They also did not identify any criminal charge tied to the June 2025 on-shift allegations, leaving the licensing case as the main public proceeding.
That leaves unanswered questions in one of medicine’s fastest-moving settings. Emergency physicians make treatment decisions for patients who arrive by ambulance, walk in with chest pain or are rushed through triage after sudden injuries, usually with no time to research a doctor’s license history. The board’s public documents do not say how many patients Dillman saw during the shift at issue, whether a colleague documented a medication concern or how long the alleged impairment lasted. They do say her employer suspended her privileges and that regulators later cited a psychiatrist’s diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. For many patients, that combination of an on-duty allegation, an unnamed hospital and ongoing restricted practice is why the case feels larger than a routine licensing file.
For now, the next milestone is not a verdict but a board action. A stipulated settlement could tighten restrictions, suspend Dillman’s license or resolve the case with a probationary order. A hearing could end with the charges sustained, reduced, withdrawn or dismissed. Until one of those steps happens, the file remains a partial public record: it shows what regulators say they observed in June 2025, what limits they have placed on Dillman’s practice and what still remains unknown, including the hospital’s identity, the exact substance at issue and whether Dillman plans to fight the case. The case is serious not because the outcome is final, but because the allegations are already public and the restrictions are already in place.
As of April 16, 2026, Dillman remained the subject of a pending state accusation, and no final decision was visible in the board materials reviewed for this article. The next clear marker will be either a settlement, a scheduled administrative hearing or a published board decision.
Author note: Last updated April 16, 2026.