Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians v. State, Division of Corporations, Business & Professional Licensing
414 P.3d 630
Alaska2018Background
- Alaska licensed naturopaths under AS 08.45 (enacted 1986), defining naturopathy to include practices such as hydrotherapy, dietetics (which the statute says “include[] herbal and homeopathic remedies”), electrotherapy, and manual manipulation.
- AS 08.45.050 prohibits naturopaths from giving, prescribing, or recommending a “prescription drug,” using controlled substances, engaging in surgery, or using the title “physician.” The statute does not define “prescription drug.”
- Department regulations (adopted 1994) defined "dietetics" to include vitamins and minerals and defined "prescription drug" to exclude herbal/homeopathic/dietetic substances; in practice, naturopaths prescribed/ administered injectable vitamins (which require prescriptions) and pharmacists sometimes filled those orders.
- In 2014 the Department amended 12 AAC 42.990 to (1) redefine “prescription drug” to mean any medicine requiring a prescription (removing the prior exclusion for herbal/homeopathic/dietetic substances) and (2) expressly exclude prescription drugs from the definitions of dietetics, herbal, and homeopathic remedies—effectively barring naturopaths from prescribing injectable vitamins/minerals.
- Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians sued for declaratory relief, arguing the new regulation conflicted with AS 08.45 (claiming the statute’s inclusion of “dietetics” implicitly permits prescribing dietetic injectable substances). The superior court granted summary judgment for the State and awarded the State 20% of its attorney fees; the Association appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 12 AAC 42.990 is inconsistent with AS 08.45 by defining “prescription drug” to include all prescription medicines (thus barring naturopaths from prescribing injectable vitamins/minerals). | The statutory inclusion of “dietetics” in naturopathy contemplates use/prescription of dietetic substances (including injectable vitamins/minerals); the statute’s ban on prescribing ‘‘prescription drug’’ should not be read to prohibit all prescription medicines composed of natural substances. | The statutory text and structure, legislative history, and comparison to other health‑profession statutes show the legislature did not grant prescriptive authority to naturopaths; “prescription drug” commonly includes natural substances and the specific statutory restriction limits general definitional terms. | Affirmed: regulation consistent with AS 08.45; naturopaths lack statutory prescriptive authority for prescription medicines including injectable vitamins/minerals. |
| Whether the statutory language of AS 08.45 affords naturopaths prescriptive authority by implication (through the general definition including dietetics). | Inclusion of dietetics means naturopaths can use/prescribe dietetic substances; some dietetics require prescriptions, so prescriptive authority is implicit. | Where legislature intends to confer prescribing power it does so explicitly in other statutes; the specific restriction on prescription drugs controls the general definition and legislative history removed earlier draft language granting any prescriptive authority. | Held for State: no implied prescriptive authority; specific ban cabins the general term. |
| Whether the Association may avoid an adverse attorney’s fees award as a public‑interest litigant. | The Association argued entitlement to the public‑interest litigant exception (exempting it from the 20% fee award). | The common‑law public interest exception was superseded by statute; Association did not invoke the statutory provision or raise constitutional claims in the trial court or on appeal. | Waived/abandoned: challenge to fees not preserved; fee award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Dep’t of Admin., 324 P.3d 293 (Alaska 2014) (standard for reviewing agency statutory interpretation where agency expertise is not implicated)
- Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1987) (principle on substitution‑of‑judgment review of agency interpretations)
- Heller v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013) (weight to afford longstanding agency interpretations)
- DeVilbiss v. Matanuska‑Susitna Borough, 356 P.3d 290 (Alaska 2015) (standard for reviewing attorney’s fees awards)
- Alaska Conservation Found. v. Pebble Ltd. P’ship, 350 P.3d 273 (Alaska 2015) (treatment of public‑interest litigant doctrine after statutory change)