The International Chiropractors Association of California and the proposed changes to Chiropractic laws by the California Legislature:

ICAC opposes AB 1137 & SB 801, as currently written:

The California Chiropractic Initiative Act was enacted in 1922 due to the combined effort of all chiropractors of various techniques and philosophies and a small group of naturopaths licensed under a 1909 statute. One form of license was to include these groups. Section 16 of the 1922 California Chiropractic Act requires the act to be interpreted so as to not “discriminate against any particular school of chiropractic, or any other treatment”. 

The 1922 California Chiropractic Initiative Act was, with two primary exceptions, intended to grant chiropractors essentially the same scope of practice as drugless practitioners under the 1913 Medical Practice Act. Chiropractors were granted the right to use all forms of treatment except allopathic drugs or operative surgery.

The California Board of Chiropractic Examiner’s web site includes a purported copy of the 1922 “Initiative Act” composed of 19 Sections from 1922 plus a 20^th Section from 1978. The 1922 Act was composed of two parts. The first part (the portion on the Board’s web site) established the structure and administration of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.  

The second part modified and applied certain provisions of the 1913 Medical Practice Act to the new “chiropractic” profession. This entire second part of the 1922 Act has been omitted ever since the Act was published in 1923; indeed, the whole Act, voted on and approved by the imitative has never been properly added to the California statute books.

Creating a chiropractic act was legislatively attempted multiple times:

1913: AB 309

            SB 430

1915: AB 252

            AB 256

            SB 1078

1917: AB 95

            SB 24

            SB 57

            SB 105

            SB 279

1919:  AB 196

            AB 321

            SB 381

1921: AB 72

Because of this history of chiropractic in the state of California and in the nation (as discussed in detail within the Wilk v AMA), the ICAC does not support the following portions of the proposed bills, AB 1137 and SB 801:

• Codifying the Chiropractic Act

• Authorize the Legislature to sunset and reconstitute the BCE.

• Interfering with the Executive Branch of the Governor’s Office by requiring Senate confirmation of the Governor’s appointments.

• Placing the BCE under the authority of the Department of Consumers Affairs.
  • Boards under the DCA, including the optometry, dental and acupuncture boards have had much more serious problems than the BCE. The BCE does contract with DCA for specific services and will continue to do so.

• Require any relationship with] the attorney general’s office, other than currently provided for under the government code and as provided for other boards by the California Constitution. There have been conflicts of interest in the past, like that which occurred over Section 302 of the chiropractic regulations and between osteopath’s and other entities. The BCE should be able to contract, as provided for within the existing provisions of the government code, for example with DCA, for needed council or if the Attorney General’s Office, DPA and DCA are conflicted, to hire] outside council when a conflict exists.– case law:

People ex rel. Deukmejian v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 150, 154. (The California Supreme Court stated that, under Government Code § 11040, “[t]here is no question that at such time as he believed a potential conflict existed, the Attorney General could … properly withdraw as counsel for his state clients and authorize them to employ special counsel.”)

D`Amico v. Board Of Medical Examiners , 11 Cal.3d 1 (1974)

This litigation constitutes the latest chapter in the long and bitter history of the efforts of medical practitioners having osteopathic (as opposed to allopathic) training to practice their profession in this state. That history has been amply described in previous appellate opinions and we do not undertake to reiterate it here. (See D`Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 716, 721-723 [86 Cal.Rptr. 245]; Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. Cal. Medical Assn. (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 378 [36 Cal.Rptr. 641]; Gamble v. Bd. of Osteopathic Examiners (1942) 21 Cal. 2d 215 [130 P.2d 382].)

The ballot argument in favor of the 1962 Act represented that adoption thereof would discontinue the practice of osteopathy in California.

The Attorney General is statutory counsel for the medical board as well as for the osteopathic board. (Gov. Code, §§ 12511, 12512.) Early in these proceedings, however, the Attorney General determined that there was a possible conflict between the medical and osteopathic boards, and the latter board retained private counsel.

• Require the BCE budget to be included in the annual Budget Act.

- The Board is self-sufficient and has a surplus; it does not use public money. The Board has adequately handled it’s own finances, and the Legislators borrowed millions of dollars a few years ago.

• Require staff be subject to civil service rules. 

- There is a need to contract certain services such as investigators. These needs may vary from year to year.

• No approval is needed for a Board appointed Executive Officer, as provided for within the Chiropractic Initiative by the Director of Consumer Affairs for other boards.

The ICAC has been working on [significant] proposed changes to the Chiropractic Act for more than a year. Recently the ICAC has been working with the CCA and the California Chiropractic Colleges on these issues of interest and concern to our entire profession.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------