October 2004

ICA files ‘amicus’ brief in PT case

The International Chiropractors Association (ICA) has filed an extensive “Amicus Curie” or friend of the court brief in a landmark case in Arkansas that has significant potential to halt the efforts of the physical therapy profession to expand into chiropractic’s unique territory.

The case is Teston vs. Arkansas Board of Chiropractic, in which a physical therapist in Arkansas was found to be performing “spinal manipulations,” for which only chiropractors are licensed. The Arkansas Board of Chiropractic Examiners found the defendant to be in violation of the Chiropractic Practice Act and levied a “civil penalty” of $10,000.

The PT appealed the decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court and the ICA prepared its amicus curiae brief in support of the Chiropractic Board’s decision.

The Arkansas attorney general invited ICA to submit a brief in the case. The attorney general is defending the Chiropractic Board and ICA’s efforts were coordinated with the chiropractic community in the state to provide for maximum effectiveness.

National physical therapy groups have also intervened on behalf of the PT. The American Physical Therapy Association and the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy have filed briefs with the Arkansas Supreme Court in support of the PT.

ICA’s brief spoke to the intent behind the PT case — to expand the scope of physical therapy without following the traditional legislative path. The brief stated: “The ICA cannot sit idly by while organized medicine incorporates chiropractic techniques into its branch of physical therapy in hopes of making chiropractic moot in the eyes of insurance companies, federal programs, and the unsuspecting public.”

Key to the PTs’ argument is that there is no statutory difference between “spinal manipulation” and other procedures authorized under state law for the physical therapy profession. The PT attorneys argue that the vagueness of the statute gave the PT in the case the leeway to perform high-velocity thrust procedures, within his PT license.

The State Board of Examiners as well as the ICA have pointed out that this is incorrect and that the only time ”spinal manipulation” is mentioned in the physical therapy statute is a specific passage excluding PTs from being authorized to perform these procedures.

The Arkansas Code, 17-93-102(6)(B)(i)(c), gives PTs authority to provide: “Manual therapy techniques, including soft tissue massage, manual traction, connective tissue massage, therapeutic massage, and mobilizations, i.e. passive movement accomplished with normal range of motion of the joint, but excluding spinal manipulation and adjustment.”

The ICA brief indicates that the Arkansas Chiropractic Board followed due process, considered all the evidence and allowed the physical therapists to provide their own point of view, but the compelling balance of findings shows that the line was crossed and that the State Board acted correctly to fulfill its responsibility to protect the public.

“This brief is an historic and extraordinary piece of legal scholarship and every chiropractor should take the time to read these documents,” said ICA President Dr. CJ Mertz. The documents are available on ICA’s website at www.chiropractic.org.

Source: International Chiropractors Association, www.chiropractic.org.

Industry News from:
Chiropractic News from: