In Zuckerman v. Bd of Chiropractic Examiners (2002) 29 Cal.4th 32, a disciplined chiropractor raised a facial challenge to the regulation which authorizes the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to order a chiropractor found to have committed misconduct to pay "reasonable costs of investigation and enforcement of the case," which "shall include the amount of investigative and enforcement costs up to the date of hearing." (29 Cal.4th at p. 35.) That plaintiff contended that the regulation violated the due process rights of chiropractors whom the Board sought to discipline by chilling their right to request a hearing to contest charges of misconduct. The Supreme Court disagreed. However, several findings made by the Court are of import here. They are found in the portion of the opinion in which the Court analyzed the plaintiff's contention that the cost recoupment provision in the regulation would result in erroneous deprivation of the right to practice a profession, thus violating constitutional guarantees of due process. (29 Cal.4th at pp. 43-46.) The Court found that it would not, but held that "The Board must exercise its discretion to reduce or eliminate cost awards in a manner that will ensure that the regulation does not deter chiropractors with potentially meritorious claims or defenses from exercising their right to a hearing. Thus, the Board must not assess the full costs of investigation and prosecution when to do so will unfairly penalize a chiropractor who has committed some misconduct, but who has used the hearing process to obtain dismissal of other charges or a reduction in the severity of the discipline imposed. The Board must consider the chiropractor's 'subjective good faith belief in the merits of his or her position' and whether the chiropractor has raised a 'colorable challenge' to the proposed discipline. Furthermore, as in cost recoupment schemes in which the government seeks to recover from criminal defendants the cost of their state-provided legal representation, . . . the Board must determine that the chiropractor will be financially able to make later payments. Finally, the Board may not assess the full costs of investigation and prosecution when it has conducted a disproportionately large investigation to prove that a chiropractor engaged in relatively innocuous misconduct." (Zuckerman v. Bd of Chiropractic Examiners, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 45.) The Court also found that insofar as the regulation required payment of investigation and prosecution costs incurred before the Board filed formal charges, it did not discourage chiropractors from seeking a hearing, but noted that the "further requirement that disciplined chiropractors must pay costs the Board incurs after charges are filed poses a greater risk of causing erroneous deprivations of the right to practice." (Zuckerman v. Bd of Chiropractic Examiners, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 44.)