THE ATTORSEY GESERAL 

OF TEXAS 

December 28, 1990 

Dr. James E. Franklin, D.C. Opinion No. JM-1279 

President 

Texas Hoard of Chiropractic Re: Whether .a chiropractor may 

Examiners use the title %hiropractic 

8716 MoPac Expressway physicianq' (RQ-2133) 

North, Suite 301 

Austin, Texas 70759 

Dear Dr. Franklin: 

Article 4512b,~ V.T.C.S., the Texas Chiropractic Act, 

creates the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners and 

governs the registration, examination, licensure, and 

practice of chiropractors. Your letter requesting an 

opinion states: 

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners 

respectfully requests your opinion on the 

Board's authority to adopt a rule authorizing 

a chiropractor to use the title 'chiropractic 

physician.' 

We understand you to ask whether the board is authorized to 

promulgate a rule permitting a chiropractor to use the title 

"chiropractic physician" in addition to one of the 

designations that chiropractors are required by article 

4590e, V.T.C.S, to employ. We conclude that it does. 

Administrative agencies may promulgate rules when 

;zrss authority to do so is conferred by statute or when 

implied authority is necessary to accomplish the 

purpose of the statute. Gerst v. Oak Cliff Sav. & Loan 

Ass'n, 432 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. 1968); Gulf Land Co. v. 

Atlantic Refining C 0. I 131 S.W.Zd 73 (Tex. 1939). Hence, 

when a statute expressly authorizes an agency to regulate an 

industry or profession, it impliedly authorizes the adoption 

of regulations to accomplish that purpose. Railroad Comm'n 

V. Shell Oil Co,, 161 S.W.2d 1022 (Tex. 1942): pallas Countv 

&ail Bond Bd. v. Stein 771 S.W.Zd 577 (Tex. App. - Dallas 

1989, writ denied). Whether promulgated on the basis of 

express authority or implied authority, any rules adopted 

p. 6859 
Dr. James E. Franklin - Page 2 (JM-1279) 

must be reasonable and not in excess of any powers delegated. Ferst v. Oak Cliff Sav. 8 LQgn Ass'n, Suora; 

218 S.W.2d 

Texa 

412 S%.2d 

te Bd. of Examiners in Ovtometrv v. 

:USta(Tex. 

C aru 

1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 5; 

(1968), the Texas Supreme Court upheld a ruie, denominated 

the Professional Responsibility Rule, adopted by the board 

that, inter al&l regulated the trade names that optometrists could employ. The statute did not specifically 

confer express authority on the board to regulate in this 

area. The court construed the following statutory language 

as impliedly conferring the requisite authority: 

The Board shall have the power to make such 

rules and regulations not inconsistent with 

this law as may be necessary for the performance of its -duties, the regulation of the 

practice of optometry and the enforcement of 

this Act. 

Id. at 309. 

In upholding the rule, the court declared: 

We conclude that the court of civil appeals erred in its holding that the Professional Responsibility Rule added new and 

inconsistent provisions to the Optometry Act. 

To the r e 

rule's orovisions are in harmonv with the 

aener 1 obiectives of the act and referable 

to an: consistent with one or m ore of it s 

Spec' ifi c oroscriotions. We believe th at t he 

.Leaislature. bv investina the Board with 

broad -ma ' owers ' the enforcem ent 0 f thi 's A c' tand '(for1 the reoulation 

of t he D rat t ice Of ODtOmetrV.’ COntemD lated 

that S owers to 

co r rect the ev' 11 s aenerallv classified in 

article 4563. or some other orovision of the 

potometrv Act. If these rule-making powers 

did not authorize the Board to regulate evils 

not encompassed in the specific wording of 

the act, they would be nothing more than 

meaningless excess. (Emphasis added.) 

P- 6860 
Dr. James E. Franklin - Page 3 (JM-1279) 

L at 313; see also Jtee . Barn 303 S.W.Zd 376 (Tex. 

1957) (holding that board vpossessed implied authority to 

adopt rule that regulated certain advertising by optometrists). 

Subsection (d) of section 4 of article 4512b, V.T.C.S., 

confers broad authority on the Texas Board of Chiropractic 

Examiners to promulgate rules governing the practice of 

chiropractic: 

The Board shall adopt guidelines for educational preparation and acceptable practices 

for all aspects of the practice of 

chiropractic. 

Under the authority of the above-cited cases, we construe 

this section to confer on your board the implied authority 

to promulgate the rule about which you ask. 

It is suggested, however, that section 3 of article 

4590e, V.T.C.S., the Healing Art Identification Act, prohibits the use by a licensee of your board of any title or 

designation not set forth specifically therein and thereby 

precludes your board from adopting the rule about which you 

inquire. Section 3 of article 4590e, V.T.C.S., provides: 

Every person licensed to practice the 

healing art heretofore or hereafter by either 

the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 

the State Board of Dental Examiners, the 

Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners, the 

Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 

the State Board of Chiropody Examiners and 

the State Board .of Naturopathic Examiners 

shall in the professional use of his name on 

any sign, pamphlet, stationery, letterhead, 

signature, or on any other such means of 

professional identification, written or 

printed, designate in the manner set forth in 

the Act the system of the healing art which 

he is by his license permitted to practice. 

The following are the legally required 

identifications, one of which must be used by 

practitioners of the heal&a art: 

(1) If licensed by the Texas State Board 

of Medical Examiners on the basis of the degree Doctor of Medicine: ghvsician and/or 

p. 6861 
Dr. James E. Franklin - Page 4 (JM-1279) 

surgeon, M.D.: doctor, M.D.: doctor of medicine, M.D.: 

(2) If licensed by the Texas State Board 

of Medical Examiners on the basis of the degree Doctor of Osteopathy: phvsicia and/or 

surgeon, D.O.; Osteopathic phvsici: and/or 

surgeon: doctor, D.O.; doctor of osteopathy: 

osteopath: D.O. 

(3) If licensed by the State Board of Dental Examiners: dentist: doctor, D.D.S.; 

doctor of dental surgery: D.D.S.; doctor of 

dental medicine, D.M.D. 

(4) If licensed bv the Texas Board of Chi .- 

JrODraCtiC Examiners: ChirODraCtOr. . doctor, 

Q,C.: doctor of ChiroDractlc. ' . D.C2 

(5) If licensed by the Texas State Board 

of Examiners in Optometry: optometrist; 

doctor, optometrist; doctor of optometry: 

O.D. 

(6) If a practitioner of the healing art 

is licensed by the State Board of Podiatry 

Examiners, he shall use one of the following 

identifications: chiropodist: doctor, D.S.C.; 

Doctor of Surgical Chiropody: D.S.C.; podiatrist; doctor, D.P.M.; Doctor of Podiatric 

Medicine: D.P.M.; 

(7) If licensed by the State Board of Raturopathic Examiners: Rat r nathic Dhvslcl n 

phvsician. N.D.; doctor 0: Naturopathy; N.E.: 

doctor, N.D. 

Violation of article 4590e, V.T.C.S., is a misdemeanor, 

punishable by a fine upon conviction of the first two 

violations and a fine or license revocation upon conviction 

of a third. Id. §§ 5, 6. 

We disagree that section 3 of article 4590e, V.T.C.S., 

prohibits the use by a licensee of your board of the title 

"chiropractic physician" and thereby precludes your board 

from promulgating a rule permitting the designation. We do 

not construe article 4590e, V.T.C.S., to set forth an exclusive list of titles that those professionals regulated by 

the statute may employ. Rather, we construe the statute to 

p. 6862 
Dr. James E. Franklin - Page 5 (JM-1279) 

set forth, in effect, minimum requirements with which the 

regulated professionals must comply. In other words, we 

construe section 3 to require the use by a regulated professional of one of the designations set forth in the section, 

but it is silent with regard to whether such a licensee may 

employ any additional designation. We construe section 3 in 

this fashion for two reasons. 

First, the language of section 3 simply will not sustain a reading that the specified designations comprise an 

exclusive list. The relevant language of section 3 provides: "The following are the legally required identifications, one of which m st 

healing art . . . . Iqu 

be used by practitioners of the 

(Emphasis added.) There is no 

language in the act purporting to limit those designations 

that a regulated professional may use to only those set 

forth. So long as one of the specified designations is 

used, no violation of section 4590e, V.T.C.S., will occur. 

Second, we think that our construction comports with 

the evident intention of the legislature when it enacted the 

Texas Chiropractic Act and its apparent recognition that 

persons engaged in the practice of chiropractic employ designations other than those set forth in section 3 of 

article 4590e. Section 1 of article 4512b, V.T.C.S., 

provides in pertinent part: 

A person shall be regarded as practicing 

chiropractic within the meaning of this Act 

if the person: 

. . . . 

(3) holds himself out to the public as a 

chiropractor or uses the term 8chiropractor,g 

*chiropractic,' ‘p of chiropractic,* 

'D.C.,' or 

connection with his name. (Emph%s added.) 

It is clear that the legislature meant to include within the 

ambit of the act those persons who employ not only the term 

%hiropractor," but also those persons who employ "any derivative" of those specified terms. 

Moreover, we conclude that the evident purpose of the 

act would in no way be undermined if, in addition to the 

list of designations from which a licensee is required to 

choose, he is also permitted to employ the title "chiropractic physician." Section 3 of article 4590e, V.T.C.S., 

p. 6863 
Dr. James E. Franklin - Page 6 (JM-1279) 

i 

authorizes each of the professionals regulated by the act to 

employ the term "doctorI in a way that identifies the 

healing art by which he is permitted by his license to 

practice, and authorizes osteopaths and naturopaths to 

employ the term "physiciann as well. The act already 

permits a practitioner of chiropractic to employ the term 

wdoctorO1 if, in addition, he identifies that the healing art 

for which he possesses a license is that of chiropractic. 

The terms wdoctor" and "physician*' are functionally 

synonymous: thus a chiropractor's 

not be misleading.1 

employing the term would 

See., M.i,Llina v. State,a150e ",.W, 

434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912); Walters v. Bull-a M int n nc 

Service. IX,, 291 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1956, 

no writ): Barfield v. State, 110 P.2d 316 (Okla. Grim. APP. 

1941); mmas V. Carlton Hosierv Mills, 81 A.2d 365 (N.J. 

1951); see also V.T.C.S. art. 4567b (practice of podiatry to 

include, inter alig, a "podiatric physician"); Op. Okla. 

Att'y Gen. No. 78-173 (1978)(holding that "physicianl' includes the term llchiropractortl for purposes of a statute 

licensing persons who practice the healing arts)! ;2 U.S.C. 

5 1395x(r) (defining l'physician'l to include, an er alia, 

"chiropractor" for purposes of federal public health and 

welfare statutes). 

We conclude that the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners is authorized to promulgate a rule permitting its 

licensees to employ the term @'chiropractic physician," if 

that phrase is employed in addition to,one of the terms or 

phrases that the board's licensees are required to employ by 

article 4590e, V.T.C.S. 

1. We note that our construction of article 4590e, 

V.T.C.S., in no way conflicts with Maceluch v. Wvsonq 680 

F.2d 1062 (5th Cir. 1982). In that case the co&t of 

appeals upheld the statute's requirement that an osteopath 

had to employ the designation set forth in section 3 and 

could not employ the term "M.D.l' instead. The court held, 

inter lia that permitting 

identi:ying term 

an osteopath to employ the 

"M. D. " would mislead the public into 

assuming that his degree was a degree as a "doctor of 

medicine." We are here holding that a chiropractor is 

required to employ one of the terms or phrases set forth in 

section 3, but that he is not precluded by that statute from 

employing an additional term or phrase if that term or 

phrase does not serve to mislead the public. 

p. 6864 
Dr. James E. Franklin - Page 7 (JM-1279) 

SUMMARY 

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners 

is authorized to promulgate a rule permitting 

its licensees to employ the term 

%hiropractic physician," if the phrase is 

employed in addition to one of the terms or 

phrases that the board's licensees are 

required to employ by article 4590e, V.T.C.S. 

J!k 

JIM MI+TTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

MARYKELLER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

Lou MCCREARY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RENEA HICKS 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Jim Moellinger 

Assistant Attorney General 

P. 6865