Opinion ID: 218391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: McKinley (The Chiropractor)

Text: McKinley brings his claims under a separate subsection, and Abbott has made no statement that § 38.12(d)(2)(A) will not be enforced. Challenges to statutes regulating commercial speech do not enjoy the expanded standing inquiry employed in normal First Amendment overbreadth cases because the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech. [15] Therefore, McKinley bears the burden to show (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct alleged; and (3) that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. [16] Abbott contends that McKinley has alleged no actions that McKinley intends to take that would be punishable by § 38.12(d)(2)(A). However, McKinley argues that he could violate the plain language of the statute by giving business cards and brochures to his satisfied patients and encouraging them to share the information with others. We agree. On its face, the Barratry Statute reaches a person who knowingly permits written communications to be provided to an accident victim within 30 days of the accident. [17] The statute does not require that the third party providing the written information be paid for the referral. McKinley stated in his complaint that he encourage[s] people who are satisfied with [his] work to share such information with others, especially at the earliest possible point after an injury when medical treatment is needed the most. [18] Therefore, on its face, McKinley's complaint alleged that he has acted and intends to act in a manner that could violate § 38.12(d)(2)(A). McKinley has, therefore, established a concrete injury that is actual and imminent. Abbott does not argue that McKinley cannot meet the other prongs of the standing inquiry. If, as we have stated, McKinley's actions might violate the Barratry Statute, then on the facts of this case he has also established the necessary causal link and redressability. McKinley has standing to bring his claims.