OFFICE OF THE All-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable R. k. Fuchs, Chainnan 

Sub-aocnnlttee 0.f the State AZialrs Committee 

House or Representatiree 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

Committee subatit 

taohed hereto. 

Board or Chiro 

practors in.th 

oreate for the 

similar to 

p 

that 

J 8, 1941, we hare oareconstitutionality, the 

OOPJ or nhieh Is athe oreatlon ot the Texas 

all lloense all Chirotatate for medloine, nursing, 

praotlo under presdnt statutes 

the praotloe of lnediolne as oonode 0r Texas, 1926, whloh reads: 

any systan or method, or to effsct oures thereof. 

“2. Who shall treat or offir.to treat aup 

disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any 

physical deformity or Injury, by any system or 

method, or to effect oures thareoi and charge. 

therefor, dlreatly or lndireotly, money or other 

compe~ation.~ 

Our oourts have repeatedly held t&t persona professing to practloe Chlropraotio must be licensed under the MedLcal 

WD COYHuriI**TKI" I. To u CONSTRVID As A mLFA"IYQar*L QTIwIo* -8sAA- n MI ArroA*n 001rrAL 0" ,llsl *ssmTAm 
*i . 

! 

Honorable R. A. Fuohs, Page 2 

Praotloe A& or bo 

olne without a lfoonee. 

Pew ‘I. State, 134.8. ?. 

(2d) 580; Key Y. 

S. W. (2d) 631. 

The question whhloh presents Itself for our deterninatlon 18 whether the Legislature may oonetitutionally olassiiy 

the praotloe of Chimpraotio es a separate oategory from the 

practice or medlolno and prescribe dliierent prerequisites thereror. The legal question 18 somewhat analogous to that presented 

upon the enaotment of the Optometry Statute, Chapter 10 of Title 

71, Articles 4552-4566, Revised Clrll Statutes, 1925, which was 

before the Court of Crfmlnal Appeals or Texas In Baker Y. State, 

240 5. W. 924, 22 A. L. R. 116S. In that oaee the court in 

eustainlng a oonviatlon of Raker, an Optometrlet, ror 3raotlofng 

medloln8 without .a lioahee doolamd: . 

l Reoal3Aig tha eolioitade wh%oh th# IrMaklng 

dqurtaent 8f the goyelmment or this state ha8~418- 

plaled ror the 

breadth of the P 

roteotion or tho pub110 health, the, 

angtrage oho8en In v&ioh to define 

the praotioe or wdloine, and Its railure to exanpt 

the optametdet therefmn, bearing in mind the oftenrepeated deolaratlon 0r this oourt In oonstruiag the .. 

Medioal Praotioe Aot, that it dealt not with the 

o~fow~rle~.8. in a eeoarate aUse, M I St baa dolls dentists and nweae. is without ctueetlon. The erped(lienoy 

rdi Is a matter of polloy with kbloh the ootute 

:r. :o;=ci%tmn6d.m~ mlpha818 .~urS) . 

Aft&the abwe dpl.&n.wae writt8n,.but, berore the 

" 

: . . 

w&in ror rehaai%q, the LiglqZata~ 'inaoted 

retortid to abwe. Tho?eupOa,.~~,,oourt rerereed the.jrd~Mt tit oonvlotfOn.!@on the @mad that und8r 

the Optmetry 8trtute -ths sots of the derendawn? longer oonetitated thb .praetlee or medlolne within 'ths msanlng or the 

Hedloal Plnotloe Aot. In Its opinion on rehearing the oourfi 

also considered the application of Artlole 16, Section 31 of the 

Texas Constitution, whloh reads: 

qhe Legislature may paas laws presoribing 

the quallftoatlons of praotf$loners or mediolne 

in thIs State, and to punish persons formalpractloe, but no preference shall eyer be given 

by law to any eohools or medlolne." 
Honorable R. A. Fuohs, Page 3 

Or this pmvlslon, the oourt said: 

WWhlle the Co5itltution foYbld8 any 12glslation showing preference for a5y aohool of 

wdlolna, it does not icirbld leglslatlye deiinitlon or what does, and else what does not oonstitute the practice of mqdlolne.” 

In Rbberttos Y. State, 45 S. W. (2d) 595, an attaok 

was made on the oonstltutlonallty of the Hedicel Praotloe Aot'.ae 

being disorlminatory bemuse of the exemption of OptOaetrlsta; 

The Court Of Criminal Appeflls, after Glscusslng the Baker ease, 

declared, at p. 598: 

*The Legislature would have hsd a right' 

orlgl5ally to’ exunpt optometrists, as that teaa 

is dalclned, tmr the pumAtie or the’Wedida1 

Praotioe Aot the same as it did dentlste, nareee : 

and weeoure.w 

In Ex P’rte Colllna, 121 8. W. 301, the.Ootir% or Oririnal Appeals sustained a domlotlon or an 

the Mediaal Praotioo wt In that he was not 

and in its opinion the aourt Fald: 

** * * there is no linitatlon upon the power 

of the Leglelatnre in said prorieion or the Oonetltution (Art. 16, Sea. 31, l upra) whfoh lnhlblte 

the Legislature or this state Mdsr Its polioe 

pewr te :prwent say .*w .pr~etidug say:•peolee 

or eharaoter of raredy taoore aal real or supposed ill that the body has or is aubjeot to. 

r0r pay.” 

The oase of Johnson i. State by the Dallas Court of 

Chll Appeals, 267 a. 1. 1037, (writ of error retused) is peoullarly pertl~~nt to the question wlsr ooneldemtion. In euetainln6 an injunotloa .metrrlning 8 Ohiropraotor ‘rm oala+ul1~ praotlolng wdlo.Uke, the court said, at p. 1060: 

aT~.Legielatare did not, by its enaofdant 

or tho Modioal Praotlos Aot forbid the. praotlde. 

$r*ay reeogelred eohool or e~etaa of healing 

. In the interest of the publlo health 

and the genral welfare of the people, the Leglslature is authorlsed to preacrlbe suoh regulations to be oonrormed by persons aeeklng to enter 

. the praotloe of medloine as in lfa ‘judgmnt will 

eeoure or tend to aeoure the people against the 

oonsequenoea of ignora5oe a5d l5aapaclty, as 

well as of deoeptlon and fraud, and this without 

regard to any speolal system or praotice or any 

established school of medlolne.w 
Ron&able R. A. Fuch8, Page 4 

. ** + .*. 

w~48e 00nditio~ (or the ~edi0ti Pn0ti0a 

bet) apply to all per8one alike; they do not 

preaoribo any method to be anplayed in heallag 

diaaaae~ or any ayatun of praotioe to be adopted 

by the praotitioner. Ii he poaaaaae8 the qwlirioations prescribed by the statutes and is awarded 

a oartirioate to praatioe medioino, he is jaat as 

free to adopt the epatuu of the ohiropraotor as 

he is to adopt the system of the regular phyaioiti. 

The faot that if requires a broader eduoation than 

is given by the ohiropraotio college to mebt these 

oonditlons cannot be urged as a diaorimination 

against auoh aohoola of madioine. It is (~811~ 

within the power or the chlropmator to conrorm 

to the prr8oribod oondition8. Thi8 reoord shows 

that all the aubjoota preaorib.ed by th la lot tcrr 

examlimtion an taught by the ohiropnotio 8ohoola 

l xoopt those or aarga.rr and medioal juriapr@~~m; 

a0 that it may be said tbat these 8ohoola 

&ive substantial reoognition to the e8aential 

qualliioations prescribed .by tileae atatutea.w 

Vaughan, T . , 

106S, dealarea: 

disaming in the Johnson oaae, at p. 

** * * it is the oplnlon or the writer 

that oourta should take, judioial cognicanoa that 

ohiropraotio ia a a&em 0r healing antirolt 

separate and dlounot rr0m tha ‘~~aotlo~~~ 2’. 

ular mmUd.no, $*t as Judioial 00 

the r80t that the praotioo or dent P stry IS dirrwent rwm the praotioe or regular medieino 

and requires in a large measure, a dirrerent 

eiduoatlon.w 

While no Texas oourt has held 'in aooordanoo with Judge 

Vau&an~a viowa as quoted above in hie~ dlsmnting o 

et 

inion in the 

Johnson oaae. that a oourt may properly "take Judl al oogniarnoe 

that ahiropraotio Is a ayatam 0r healing entirely sopante and 

diatinot rmm the praotioe or r*gnlar rd%oine? wuler exlating 

8tatutea. all oi the authorities, however, indioate that the 

Legislature may, If It de&s proper, reoo nize auoh a dlatlnotion 

and give statutory sanotion thereto. As f llustrated by the Baker 

oase, aupra, Optometry wes oonatrued to be a scienae ambraoed 

within the vpraotioe of mediolnev as defined by the Yedloal Praotioe Aot, until the Legislature, by express statute, took 00&zanoe or Optometry es a separate subdivision thereof, end preeodbed speoial qualiricatlons and reagulatlon for tpe praotioe of 

Optometry, thereby exoludlng it rmm the provisions of the Hediaal Praotiae Aot. By a similar prooess, the Legislature set up 

quallflcations and regulations differing from those whlah apply 

to the general practioe of medicine, ror Chiropodists when it 
Honorable R. A. Fuohe , Page 5 

enaotea the Qhlro 4 Stat&a in lOPiS, Cbaptor 11, .Fitlc 71, 

Artlolee 4Sd8-4551c hviaed, 0ivl.l Statutaa, 1985. 

The ror8going authorltiba Indiaate, -we b&eve, .that 

there is no oonatitutional lnhlbltion whioh will pravent'the Lwislature mm rwther subdividing the tie14 or mediolne in its . 

broadest aease into an lnffnlte nm&er or llmlted oat orlea 

ahd providing separate qaaliiioatlons and regulatiolllr T or th8 

praotioe or saeh. .The oonstitutionalitp oi eaoh auoh regulatory 

dot, If it be reasonable, may be sustained upon the theory that 

~at.;henaoted in rurtheranos of the proteotlon of the pub110 

We are aware of no provision of the State or Federal 

Coneti&tlone which would be violated by the Commltteo aabstltute for House Bill 189 whloh you have submitted to us. If 

enaoted, it would oxampt Ohiropraptors from the Yedieal Praotloe Act, and plaoe them onder the supervlslon and regulation 

or thb "Texas Board 0r Chiropraotlo Examiners." 

Toara very tnly 

;. 

ATTORBIR GERBBAi.w TWAB 

mmImoRB 

APPRwBDMATso, 

anvrr Solle~a~ 

First Aaaiatant 

ATTORUBY .O?XlCR&L 

By(signe4) Falter B. K&i 

. Aaalatdht 

1W 

APF’ROiED - Opinloa’Q@mltto& 

WIB - ahallan