Opinion ID: 1265792
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutional interest/level of scrutiny

Text: CFJ argues that the statute and regulation infringe on a fundamental interest, the physician-patient relationship, and consequently require a very high level of justification. See Falcon v. Alaska Public Offices Comm'n, 570 P.2d 469, 476 (Alaska 1977). The State responds that they affect only an economic or commercial interest, and are therefore only subject to the lowest level of scrutiny. See Herrik's Aero-Auto-Aqua Repair v. Dep't of Transp., 754 P.2d 1111, 1114 (Alaska 1988) (citing Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359, 363 (Alaska 1976) (noting that legislation of economic and commercial interest is traditionally subject to the lowest level of scrutiny)). As the State correctly notes in its brief, the most precise description of the constitutional interest implicated here is the right of a health care provider to receive payment under the Workers' Compensation Act for continuing multiple treatments in excess of the frequency standards without administrative review. The regulation does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. It merely prescribes the procedures under which a physician may seek payment under the Act. Thus, the interest at issue is merely an economic one, entitled to the minimum level of judicial scrutiny. CFJ argues that, at the very least, the interest implicated here should be characterized as important because the care providers' right to engage in an economic endeavor in a particular industry is threatened. In State v. Enserch Alaska Constr., Inc., 787 P.2d 624, 633 (Alaska 1989), we held that although a statute providing that a hiring preference be given to residents of economically distressed zones for contracts involving public works projects did not result in a total deprivation of employment, it nevertheless impaired the important right to engage in economic endeavor, thereby requiring us to closely scrutinize the law. Id. The interest asserted in Enserch, however, is different from the one asserted here. The statute in Enserch completely foreclosed some members of a class of persons from participating in an economic endeavor. In contrast, the statute and regulation challenged here do not prohibit chiropractors from treating or contracting with any patient. The only interest implicated here is economic, and does not rise to the level of the interest asserted in Enserch. We consequently apply the minimum level of judicial scrutiny to the statute and regulation. [9]