Court Opinion

ID: 9516697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:49:11.47136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:44.919869
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting in part and concurring in part). Although I agree with the result reached by the majority in most respects, I find that I cannot agree with their treatment of the issue concerning the ability of chiropractors to recommend to their patients the use of food supplements and vitamins.
The items in question are not regulated by the controlled substances section of the Public Health Code. MCL 333.7101 et seq.; MSA 14.15(7101) et seq. On the contrary, they are readily accessible in most health food stores and in many other unregulated retail establishments. The majority, relying on Attorney General v Recorder’s Court Judge, 92 Mich App 42; 285 NW2d 53 (1979), concludes that chiropractors are precluded from prescribing or dispensing these items because the statute does not specifically authorize them to do so.
In my opinion, the majority’s reliance on Attorney General v Recorder’s Court Judge, supra, is misplaced. That opinion involved the chiropractic act, former MCL 338.151 et seq.; MSA 14.591 et seq. The former act was replaced by the occupations section of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.16101 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16101) et seq., which, unlike the former act, specifically authorizes chiropractors to give nutritional advice; MCL 333.16401(b)(iii); MSA 14.15(16401)(b)(iii). Furthermore, contrary to the majority’s assertion, chiropractors are now required to be trained and tested in subjects which are designed to provide them with expertise in this area e.g., anatomy, physiology, chemistry, pathology, microbiology, public *355health, rehabilitative procedures and nutrition). 1979 AC, Supp 9, R 338.12005.
The majority’s reliance on Norville v Mississippi State Medical Ass'n 364 So 2d 1084 (Miss, 1978), is also improper. The Mississippi statute which was involved in that case specifically prohibited chiropractors from using drugs in treatment. Miss Code Ann § 73-6-1. Furthermore, the statute broadly defined the term drugs to include "all medicines for internal or external use for man or beast”. Miss Code Ann § 1-3-7. The Court ruled that the foregoing evinced a strong legislative intent to preclude chiropractors from prescribing any substance for internal use.
Our statute contains no similar prohibition. On the contrary, as noted above, the Legislature has specifically authorized chiropractors to give nutritional advice. Furthermore, in view of the widespread availability of these items, and the fact that chiropractors are now required to be disciplined in this area, I am of the opinion that chiropractors may dispense or prescribe vitamins and food supplements.
I also disagree, in part, with the majority’s treatment of the issue concerning whether chiropractors may check a patient’s pulse, blood pressure, or rate of respiration. The majority notes that if chiropractors are concerned about their patient’s physical condition, they should refer them to physicians. Even if the statute requires a finding that chiropractors are precluded from checking their patients’ pulse, blood pressure, or respiration for purposes of determining whether it is safe to engage in manipulative exercises, chiropractors should at a minimum be permitted to utilize those procedures to determine whether to refer their patients elsewhere.