order to file a petition for a writ of review. However, during the period from March 10, 2006 to December 8, 2008, Dr. Williams was permitted to practice medicine as a result of the District Court’s TRO and preliminary injunction against V.I.B.M.E. Therefore, during the same period, Dr. Williams was not, and could not have been a person “aggrieved” by “the decision or determination of . . . [a] board, . . .” pursuant to Rule 15(a). Accordingly, Dr. Williams was not legally required to pursue a Writ of Review pursuant to Rule 15(a) in the Superior Court, until the District Court dismissed his entire case on December 8, 2008 and simultaneously dissolved the preliminary injunction against V.I.B.M.E. See Kumar v. Nat’l Medical Enterprises, Inc., 267 Cal Rpt. 452, 456 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Dr. Williams’ Petition for a Writ
holding that physician ceases to be aggrieved by final administrative agency decision when court sets order aside holding that the power of any administrative agency to reconsider its final decision exists only where the statutory provisions creating the agency indicate a legislative intent to permit the agency to carry into effect such power holding issuance of administrative complaint to initiate proceedings not final agency action holding that although administrative agency has inherent power to correct decisions this power is curtailed by statutory language providing specified period of time when agency decision becomes final holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review