Texas Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Patricia Gilbert, Executive Director in Her Official Capacity
03-15-00262-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 18, 2015Background
- This is an amicus brief by the Texas Chiropractic Association (TCA) and American Chiropractic Association (ACA) supporting the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (TBCE) and urging the appellate court to affirm the trial court.
- The legal dispute centers on whether chiropractors may use acupuncture (needles) as part of treatments that improve a subluxation complex or the biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system under the statutory chiropractic scope.
- Texas statute defines chiropractic scope to include any "nonsurgical, nonincisive procedure" that improves subluxation or biomechanics; the parties dispute whether acupuncture needles are "incisive" and whether acupuncture falls outside chiropractic scope.
- TAAOM and some amici argue acupuncture is a distinct specialty reserved for licensed acupuncturists and that needling is outside chiropractic scope; TCA/ACA argue chiropractic scope is broad and expressly encompasses nonincisive acupuncture when used to treat musculoskeletal biomechanics.
- The amicus warns that excluding chiropractic acupuncture would expose many chiropractors to administrative, civil, and criminal liability and would improperly narrow the statutory definition of chiropractic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chiropractors may use acupuncture to treat conditions that improve a subluxation or musculoskeletal biomechanics | Acupuncturists (TAAOM) say acupuncture is a distinct practice beyond chiropractic scope | TCA/ACA and TBCE say the chiropractic statute covers nonsurgical, nonincisive procedures (including acupuncture) when aimed at subluxation/biomechanics | Amicus position: acupuncture used to treat biomechanics is within chiropractic scope; appellate court should affirm trial court |
| Whether acupuncture needles are "incisive," thus excluded from chiropractic scope | Acupuncturists argue needles are inherently incisive, so outside "nonincisive" statutory limit | TCA/ACA point to the Acupuncture Act’s statutory treatment of acupuncture needles as nonincisive and urge plain-text interpretation | Amicus position: statute treats acupuncture needles as nonincisive; their use does not remove the procedure from chiropractic scope |
| Whether chiropractors performing acupuncture would improperly practice full-scope acupuncture (beyond musculoskeletal treatment) | TAAOM warns chiropractors may practice full-scope acupuncture (treating non-musculoskeletal conditions) without proper licensure | TCA/ACA emphasize chiropractic scope limits chiropractors to musculoskeletal uses and board rules constrain chiropractic acupuncture to that scope | Amicus position: chiropractic acupuncture is a limited subset of full-scope acupuncture and is constrained by chiropractic scope and rules |
| Whether courts should follow the plain statutory language or construe overlap in professional scopes against statutory text | Acupuncturists urge narrower readings to protect licensing boundaries | TCA/ACA urge courts to apply plain statutory language that allows overlapping scopes and permits nonincisive modalities | Amicus position: apply plain statutory language; do not judicially narrow the chiropractic scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (courts should start and generally end with plain statutory text)
- Texas Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Texas Med. Ass'n, 375 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (addresses scope overlap between chiropractors and medical doctors)
- Texas Orthopaedic Ass'n v. Texas State Bd. of Podiatric Med. Examiners, 254 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (recognizes occupational scope overlap)
- St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1997) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Simmons v. Arnim, 220 S.W. 66 (Tex. 1920) (courts must interpret statutes by their language)
- RepublicBank Dallas, N.A. v. Interkal, Inc., 691 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1985) (statutory interpretation precedents)