Case ID: so2d_739/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "| ¡.CARTER, C.J. | WHIPPLE, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randall LORD, D.C. v. STATE of Louisiana, BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES.
    No. 98 CA 1454.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    June 25, 1999.
    
      Richard G. Barham, Shreveport, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Randall Lord, D.C.
    Charles H. Braud, Jr., Baton Rouge, for Defendant/Appellee, State of Louisiana, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Department of Health and Human Resources.
    Before: CARTER, C.J., SHORTESS, and WHIPPLE, JJ.
   | ¡.CARTER, C.J.

This case involves defendant’s, the State of Louisiana, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Department of Health and Human Resources (the board), refusal to renew the chiropractic license of plaintiff, Randall Lord, D.C. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus directing the board to renew his chiropractic license. The trial court denied the petition and plaintiff appealed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff had previously held a Louisiana chiropractic license for twelve years. LSA-R.S. 37:2810 requires a practicing chiropractor to have his license renewed on an annual basis. The renewal must occur before December 31 of each year. The board has the authority to renew chiropractic licenses. LSA-R.S. 37:2804. Apparently, in connection with the renewal process, the board requires the renewal candidates to fill out a renewal application which requires disclosure of the applicant’s social security number.

Plaintiffs petition alleges the following. He applied for his renewal license in the latter part of 1997. Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 37:2810, plaintiff enclosed a renewal fee and proof of attendance at continuing education in chiropractic care with his renewal application; however, plaintiff did not disclose his social security number in the renewal application. The board denied plaintiffs request for a renewal license because plaintiff did not provide the board with his social security number and Louisiana driver’s license number. Plaintiff subsequently agreed to submit his driver’s license number (which did not contain his social security number), but refused to submit his social security number. In February 1998, the board returned plaintiff’s renewal application and renewal fee, and notified plaintiff that his 1998 renewal was delinquent and he was subject to late fees. On March 10, 1998, the board sent a letter to plaintiff advising him to “cease and desist” practicing chiropractic in Louisiana immediately due to his failure to provide his social security number.

On March 17, 1998, plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the board to renew plaintiffs chiropractic license and dispense with the delinquent charges assessed to plaintiff. On March 30, the trial court ruled in favor of the board, denying the petition for writ of mandamus. A judgment dismissing the petition was signed in 13April 1998. Plaintiff appeals the judgment asserting the following two assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in failing to order the board to renew plaintiffs chiropractic license when the stipulated evidence established that plaintiff satisfied all of the statutory requirements necessary for a renewal, and LSA-R.S. 37:2810 provides that the board “shall” renew a license when the statutory requirements are met.

2. If the trial court was correct in concluding the board was justified in requiring all chiropractors to submit their social security number when seeking a renewal license, the trial court erred by failing to order that plaintiff be allowed to practice chiropractic care subject to the financial penalties contained in LSA-R.S. 37:2810 when the board is without any statutory authority to suspend his license without a due process hearing.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

Plaintiff contests the trial court’s finding that the board was entitled to deny his license renewal request because plaintiff did not supply the board with his social security number. Plaintiff relies on LSA-R.S. 37:2810 in support of his argument. This statute sets forth two requirements which must be met before a license can be renewed by the board. These two requirements are payment of the annual license fee and proof of attendance at continuing chiropractic education. Because the words “shall renew” are utilized in the statute, plaintiff argues that the board must issue a renewal license if it receives proper payment and proof of attendance at board-approved continuing education programs.

We do not interpret LSA-R.S. 37:2810 as a mandate that the board issue a renewal license in every case where the fee is submitted with proof of attendance at continuing chiropractic education. Although these are the only two requirements expressed in this statute which addresses renewal licenses, the other statutory provisions in the chapter of the revised statutes dealing with chiropractors must also be considered. One such provision, LSA-R.S. 37:2803, provides that the board “shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations to govern its actions and to provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, pursuant to the provisions of [the Administrative Procedure Act].” Thus, the board has authority to make rules and regulations needed to conduct its affairs. In connection with the board’s authority to issue renewal licenses, it apparently chose to require the completion of a renewal license application which admittedly required disclosure of each applicant’s social security number.

Llmplicit in the concept of a renewal license is the premise that the person seeking renewal possesses the same requirements/characteristics which were required to obtain the original license. The use of a renewal application which seeks disclosure of the applicant’s social security number helps correctly identify the person and facilitate the determination that the person still meets the requirements to hold the chiropractic license. This is not an unreasonable or unduly burdensome requirement.

Although LSA-R.S. 37:2810 does not expressly state that an applicant for renewal must complete a renewal application, to interpret the omission of an express requirement for completion of a renewal application strictly would lead to absurd consequences. Particularly, without a completed renewal application, there would be no means of enforcing the board’s requirement that a licensed chiropractor supply the board with any changes in his office address. This would potentially result in an out-of-date address database and a resultant inability by the board to later locate a board-licensed chiropractor when necessary, such as in the event revocation or suspension proceedings must be implemented. We do not find that seeking disclosure of a renewal applicant’s social security number is unreasonable, unduly burdensome or overly intrusive where an applicant is seeking issuance of a license enabling him the privilege of practicing chiropractic care on other people for profit. Moreover, we note that plaintiff conceded in his appellate brief that he had given the board his social security number in the past. Therefore, in addition to the above reasons, any expectation of privacy plaintiff may have had with respect to his social security number, as it pertains to the board, has been waived.

It is undisputed that plaintiff did not provide the board with his social security number in connection with his 1998 license, renewal request, as was reasonably required by the board. Accordingly, the board was justified in refusing to renew the license, and the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. This assignment of error has no merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

Plaintiff also argues that the board lacked authority to order him to cease and desist practicing chiropractic care in March 1998, without first conducting a hearing. It is plaintiffs contention that the cease and desist order was the equivalent of a revocation [ sand/or suspension of his license, which action required a hearing pursuant to LSA-R.S. 37:2816.

LSA-R.S. 37:2816 A provides in pertinent part as follows: “After notice and an opportunity for hearing, the board may suspend or revoke any license ... issued to any chiropractor .... ” However, at the time the cease and desist order was issued in March 1998, plaintiff was not in possession of a current and/or valid chiropractic license because he failed to comply with the board’s renewal requirements. Accordingly, we find that the board had authority to order plaintiff to cease and desist his chiropractic care practice because plaintiff was practicing without a license. LSA-R.S. 37:2805 provides that “[n]o person shall engage or attempt to engage in the practice of chiropractic in this state who has not been licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.”

Plaintiff requested renewal of his license, which request was properly denied by the board. Without a renewal license, plaintiff was no longer licensed to practice chiropractic care after the first day of 1998. Thus, without a license, plaintiff was not entitled to practice chiropractic care, and the board had authority to order plaintiff to cease and desist his practice until he obtained a renewal license. The board’s action was not a suspension or revocation, and if a valid current license had been in effect, the board would have been required to hold a hearing in connection with suspension or revocation proceedings, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 37:2816. However, there is no requirement for a hearing pertaining to the board’s decision to deny a renewal request because the applicant failed to provide the required identification information to obtain the renewal. This assignment of error lacks merit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff.

AFFIRMED.

SHORTESS, J., concurs.

WHIPPLE, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

| WHIPPLE, J.,

concurring.

At the time plaintiff applied for his renewal license in the latter part of 1997, LSA-R.S. 37:2810 provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

A. (1) Beginning with the calender year 1991, each license to practice chiropractic in this state shall be renewed annually on or before December thirty-first of each year, upon payment of the renewal fee prescribed in R.S. 37:2809 and the presentation to the board of a certificate or certificates attesting to satisfactory attendance of an educational program or programs totaling twelve hours of classroom instruction which have been approved for continuing education credit by the board. (Emphasis added).

Thus, the clear wording of the statute sets forth only two requirements which must be met before the board is required to renew the license: payment of the renewal fee and presentation of documentation attesting to compliance with continuing education requirements. The statute simply did not require that the applicant furnish the board with his social security number as a condition of renewal of the license.

Additionally, section 7 of United States Public Law 93-579, effective December 31, 1974, provides as follows:

(A)(1) It shall be unlawful for any federal, state or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to—
(a) any disclosure which is required by federal statute, or
| g(b) the disclosure of a social security number to any federal, state, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
(B) Any federal, state, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.

With regard to the exception provided in subsection (A)(2)(b), the record is devoid of any evidence to establish that the board had in place on January 1, 1975, a system of records which required, by statute or regulation, disclosure of a social security number.

Nonetheless, as set forth in subsection (A)(2)(a) of this Public Law, disclosure of an individual’s social security number may be required by federal statute. In 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13) was added to require that each state, in order to improve child support enforcement effectiveness, enact laws requiring that the social security number of any applicant for a professional or occupational license be recorded on the application. To qualify for federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) funds, a state must certify that it will operate a child support enforcement program that conforms with the numerous requirements set forth in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669b, and will do so pursuant to a detailed plan approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 332, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 1356, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997). Pursuant to this statutory scheme, the state must do more than simply collect overdue support payments; it must also establish a comprehensive system to establish paternity, locate absent parents and help families obtain | ¡¡support orders. 42 U.S.C. §§ 651, 654; Blessing, 520 U.S. at 332, 117 S.Ct. at 1356. While clearly weakening the effect of section 7 of Public Law 93-579, the requirement that the state mandate applicants for certain licenses, including professional licenses, commercial driver’s licenses, occupational licenses, recreational licenses and marriage licenses, disclose their social security numbers on the application clearly fosters accomplishment of the state’s duties of locating absent parents and collecting support payments.

Regarding the effective date of this amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 666, Public Law 104-193 (the amending Act) established the effective date of the section of the Act pertinent herein as August 22, 1996. However, the Act afforded states a period within which to comply, stating therein that the Act:

shall become effective with respect to a State on the later of—
(1) the date specified in this title, or
(2) the effective date of law enacted by the legislature of such State implementing such provisions,
but in no event later than the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter beginning after the close of the 1st regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act [August 22, 1996]. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.

Apparently in response to this federal legislation, the Louisiana Legislature amended LSA-R.S. 37:23, effective April 24, 1998, to provide that each board authorized to issue a license under Title 37 (which includes the board at issue) shall require that an applicant include his social security number on the application.

Although LSA-R.S. 37:23 was amended to add this requirement after plaintiffs 1997 attempt to renew his chiropractic license, it appears that the federal legislation requiring inclusion of the social security number on such applications took effect prior to that date. The first regular session of the Louisiana Legislature 1 ¿beginning after the August 22, 1996 amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 666 was the 1997 Regular Session. That session adjourned on June 23, 1997. The first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of that session would be October 1, 1997. As noted by the majority opinion, plaintiff applied for renewal of his license in the latter part of 1997.

Thus, it would appear that the prohibition against penalizing an individual for failure to disclose his social security number as provided in section 7 of Public Law 93-579 which would otherwise govern is not applicable herein. Federal legislation requiring disclosure of plaintiffs social security number, ie., 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13), was effective as to this State prior to the board’s action in refusing to renew plaintiffs application based on his refusal to disclose his social secúrity number.

Thus, although I am troubled by the legitimate privacy concerns which arise in a situation where the record contains no indication that the license applicant has defaulted on a support obligation (or even if the applicant had any such obligation), the result herein is legally correct. Accordingly, I concur. 
      
      . The statute also mandates that a state have in effect laws requiring applicants for certain driver’s licenses to include their social security number on the application. 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13)(A); McDonald v. Alabama Department of Public Safety, - So.2d -, -, 1999 WL 195793, p. 3 (Ala.Civ.App.1999).