NOTES: 

1)  A list of what I believe to be all of the opinions issued by the California Attorney General's Office directly related to the chiropractic profession since the A.G.'s Office started publishing its opinions in 1943 follows these notes and the "Special Notes".  One of the primary purposes of including the whole set of opinions is to demonstrate the fact that in none of its opinions has the A.G.'s Office ever considered (among other relevant evidence and statutory and case law):
        a) The contents of the entire ballot measure as presented to, and approved by the voters in 1922 (the entire act), or
        b) The significance of the language in section 16 of the published act requiring that the act NOT be "construed (interpreted) so as to discriminate against any particular school of chiropractic, or any other treatment". 
                1)  The A.G.'s Office has never considered any evidence of the fact that various "schools of  chiropractic" thought existed prior to 1922. 
                2)  It is the job of the BCE to define the various "schools of chiropractic" that existed prior to 1922.  Unfortunately, this has never been done by the BCE.  (The historical data was not readily available to do this prior tothe 1990s and the work of the chiropractic historians that has recently become available.)
                3)  As a result of the BCE's past failure to define the "schools of chiropractic" that existed prior to 1922 the A.G.'s Office (and the courts) have based their whole interpretation of the act on dictionary definitions.  This has posed a major problem and the result has been to limit the scope of practice to only the most narrow definition of chiropractic.  (Unfortunately, the A.G.'s Office has never advised the BCE of its legal right and duty to define the "schools of chiropractic" and has, in fact, vigorously resisted the BCE doing so.)
2)  I will not presently draw any conclusions as to whether the failure of the A.G.'s Office to consider the entire act, or the non-discrimination requirements has been intentional.  However, it should be noted that in opinion number (25) below, the author quotes from the arguments as presented on the 1922 ballot measure.  Those arguments are not included in the published version of the act and this strongly suggests that the author of that opinion was aware of both parts of the 1922 act and chose to ignore them. 
(See copy of the entire ballot measure as approved by the voters)
3)  Some of the more specifically important portions of the respective opinions have been highlighted.  Those opinions with portions highlighted are marked by asterisks after the date.  The dates are used as links to the opinions.

SPECIAL NOTES:

The following is a set of initial impressions and commentary by DAVID PRESCOTT relative to some important points relative
to the thereafter linked California Attorney General Opinions and the chiropractic scope of practice.  These notes are not
intended to be a final interpretation of the published opinions and are subject to revision, alteration, revision and revocation as
a more thorough analysis of these opinions are made and as they are further correlated with other relevant data.  Therefore,
the following notes should be read with caution and not relied upon without further consultation with their author.

The analysis is broken into 5 categories of particular interest to the author.

ANALYSIS OF AG. OPINIONS 1943 – 2005

1.     REFERENCES TO SECTION 16 OF CHIROPRACTIC ACT and/or the ACTUAL BALLOT:

a)     There is not a single reference to section 16 in any of the AG opinions.

b)     There is not a single reference to the actual ballot, except perhaps, as noted relative to the discussion of the ballot argument in number 2.

2.     SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO 1913 MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT – OR OTHERS

a)     There are a few references to the 1913 Medical Practice Act as noted below, but none in the context of the second portion of the ballot measure.

1)     However, the 1980 opinion (63 AG.Ops. 405) dealing with the obstetrics issue does quote the whole the “Argument in Favor of Proposed Chiropractic Act” – in toto fn. 3, p. 409 – HOW??)

2)     References to the 1913 Medical Practice Act (See also, number 3)

3.     REFERENCES TO PRE-1922 CASE LAW

a)  See reference to Ratledge below.

4.   REFERENCES TO DOCTRINE OF IN PARI MATERIA

a)   9 AG.Ops. 309 (1947) – Laws relating to public health in pari materia (p. 310 cites to La Barre)

(dealt with question of whether a statute defining diagnosis may be unconstitutional  - points out that no specifics involved and, in any event, states:  “In the event the broad provisions of the legislative enactment should be found inconsistent with the Chiropractic Act, the legislative enactment would not be invalid by reason of such inconsistencies but would be inapplicable to persons subject to the Chiropractic Act to that extent.” – p. 311  -  cites to Fowler to the effect that “The subjects of study in chiropractic schools have no bearing upon the scope of practice permitted by a chiropractic license.”)

c)     59 AG.Ops. 201 (1976) – reciprocity, but refers to Hunt, Geronimo relative to Board’s powers to determine whether out-of-state chiropractors meet California educational standards.  Cites to La Barre relative to in pari materia to interpret language about “same general requirements” by looking at other statutes relating to the healing arts and similar language.

d)     59 AG.Ops. 422 – deals with right of chiropractors to use concepts of anatomy, bacteriology, etc. and indicates that section 7 must be read and considered in relation to B & P 2137 (former section 17 of 1913 MPA) which broadly defines physician’s and surgeons scope.  Refers back to its own prior opinion in 9 AG.Ops. 309 (see above).  Also, reconfirms chiropractors right to diagnose – again citing to same prior opinion.

e)     63 AG.Ops. 403 (1980) obstetrics opinion refers to doctrine.

f)      84 AG.Ops 25 (2001) – fee for recommending naturopathic products violates anti-kick back statute.  (B & P 650)  -  States:  “Finally, we find no inconsistency between the language of section 13 of the act (re: unprofessional conduct) and the statutory purposes of section 650, and thus we may construe them together.”  (See La Barre)

4.     REFERENCES TO INTERPRETING TO AVOID CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS

a)     59 AG.Ops. 396, 399 – dealing with right of BCE to put itself under the Department of Consumer Affairs and then withdraw -  “Supporting the interpretation that the placement of the Chiropractic Board within the department was merely for administrative convenience on the part of the Legislature is the well-settled principle that if the terms of a statute are by fair and reasonable interpretation capable of a meaning consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, the statute will be given that meaning, rather than another in conflict with the Constition.”  (Braxton v. Muni. Ct. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 139, 145; S.F. Sch. Dist. v. Johnson (1971) 3 Cal.3d 937, 948.)

5.   REFERENCES TO THE 1948/70/76/78 AMENDMENTS

a)     No references to these amendments except in the 1949 opinion that required enrollees to meet the new requirement.

b)     The 1980 obstetrics opinion (63 AG.Ops. at 408) specifically refers to fact of chiropractic act having been amended but states that “none of these amendments have changed sections 7 or 18 of the Act or made any change that would affect the discussion of those sections in this opinion.”  (fn. 2)

5.     MISCELLANEOUS REFERENCES

a)     4 Ag.Ops. 121, 123 (1944) does note that:

“The subjects required as qualifications for a license as a drugless physician would seem to parallel so closely those required for a chiropractic license that we believe the offering of courses and conducting classes in those subjects would be sufficient to authorize the college to now teach and grant degrees in chiropractic.”

b)     4 Ag.Ops. 341, 342 (1944) refers to the 1923 statute, but also states that “we must look to the initiative measure itself to determine the powers of the Chiropractic Board.”

c)     9 AG.Ops. 309 (1947 see above also – in pari materia.)  - dealt with question of whether a statute defining diagnosis may be unconstitutional  - points out that no specifics involved and, in any event, states:  “In the event the broad provisions of the legislative enactment should be found inconsistent with the Chiropractic Act, the legislative enactment would not be invalid by reason of such inconsistencies but would be inapplicable to persons subject to the Chiropractic Act to that extent.” – p. 311  -  cites to Fowler to the effect that “The subjects of study in chiropractic schools have no bearing upon the scope of practice permitted by a chiropractic license.”)

d)     13 AG.Ops. 213 (1949)  deals with question as to whether persons already in chiropractic college when 1948 amendment passed have to complete the 4000 hours.  YES – cites to Hunt and Ratledge re: Boards rights to set standards.  Also cites Dent.

e)     23 AG.Ops. 179 (1954)  adoption of PT laws (licensed and registered) – “The enactment of the two Physical Therapy Statutes in 1953 neither increased nor decreased the scope of the practice of chiropractic.”  This is so, because no legislative enactment can amend the initiative.

f)      29 AG.Ops. 178 – deals with gelatin and use of needle anesthetic to remove hemorrhoids.  Opinion mentions Oosteveen, but does not rely on it by indicating the procedure – not a natural one.  Finds penetration.

g)     39 AG.Ops. 228 (1962)  Venipuncture opinion.

Per Fowler, contends that “a chiropractor is not authorized to practice medicine or surgery prevented him form using drugs or severing or penetrating tissue of human beings.”

But also (p. 230) more specifically states that “The penetration of tissue is a surgical procedure (Fowler) and as such is forbidden to a chiropractor by the provisions of section 7 of the Chiropractic Act.”   Also refers to the King case which had found that a drugless practitioner did not violate the act by obtaining blood for testing purposes in that under the 1913 MPA the limitation was severing or penetrating for treatment purposes.  Not so limited as to DCs.

h)     58 AG.Ops. 558 – colonic irrigation outside scope of chiropractic practice because it is for the purpose of treating medical conditions. (constipation, inflammation and irritation of the bowel)

Quotes treat diseases, etc. as applied to physicians and surgeons and relies on definition in B & P 2141 which is derived from the original section 17 of the 1913 MPA. (does not, however, so state in the opinion)

i)      A chiropractor may perform physical therapy but as an adjunct to adjustment.

1)     Mentions Millsap as within the chain of cases related to chiropractic but only in the context of use of “light, air,… etc.”  Refers to it as background as to such uses (and as to physical culture) and in relationship to 1909 amendment to 1907 Act, but not as to other relevant factors.

2)     Quotes extensively from Fowler.  Also mentions Mangiagli as invalidating the 1950 Rule 302 that “The basic principle of chiropractic is the maintenance of the structural and functional integrity of the nervous system.”

3)     Goes on to note the Crees case invalidating of the 1954 Rule 302.

4)     Does not mention Oosterveen.

j)      63 AG.Ops. 403 (1980) obstetrics opinion.

1)     See above about the amendments.  Ignores them.

2)     Refers to CCA brief and ICAC differences of opinions about this matter but even so does not mention section 16.

3)     Quotes the whole Argument in Favor of ballot – HOW DID THEY GET THIS??

a.      States “No objection was made to the terms of the MPA, or the scope of practice permitted to drugless practitioners, and the voters were assured by the argument that the proposed Chiropractic Act ‘prohibits the use of drugs, surgery or the practice of obstetrics by chiropractors.’” 

b.     Points to Amador (p. 409-410) for the proposition that “’the ballot summary and arguments and analysis presented to the electorate in connection with a particular measure may be helpful in determining the probable meaning of uncertain language.”  (Amador v….)

c.      Again cites to La Barre as requiring harmonization of all health care laws.  But, then goes on to state “The operative effect of the Chiropractic Act is to except from the MPA those holding a license to practice insofar as their conduct is authorized by such license under the provisions of the Chiropractic Act.  (Fowler, etc.)  - at p. 411.

d.     Analyzes a whole series of case and then relies on Crees.

e.      Does not cite Oosterveen.

PUBLISHED OPINIONS:

1)  4-30-43      "Subject: Chiropractic Examinations May be Taken by an Applicant Who Has Attended 90% of the Total     Minimum Hours Required for Study."

2)  5-5-43         "Subject:  Chiropractic Board of Examiners May Not Levy Any Fee Other Than Those Authorized by he Legislature."

3)  8-22-44**   "Subject:  Chiropractic School Must be Incorporated to Confer Valid Credits on Its Students;  Effect of Education Code Sections 24201-24215 on Chiropractic Schools Discussed."

4)  9-18-44**  "Subject:  Chiropractor is Not a Physician and, Though Licensed, May Not Act Where Statute Demands "Licensed Physician."

5)  9-25-44      "Subject:  Chiropractic Board of Examiners, Power to Establish Physical Qualifications for School Enrollment, Chiropractic Act Grants None."

6)  11-16-44** "Subject: Chiropractic Examiners, State Board - Power to Affiliate with Department of Professional and Vocational Standards Discussed."

7)  8-27-45     "Subject:  Chiropractic Act Construed in Respect to Credit on General Average Allowed for Each Year of Actual Practice Since Graduation."

8)  9-19-45     "Subject:  Board of Chiropractic Examiners' Rule 8 Relating to Advertising is Valid Only in Respect to Advertising Proscribed by Chiropractic Act Section 10."

9)  5-28-45     "Subject:  Chiropractor is Not a "Licensed Physician" Entitled to Emergency Call Automobile Insignia Under Veh. C. Sec. 454.2."

10) 11-14-46   "Subject: Chiropractors May Not Use Term "Chiropractic Physician" Nor May Board of Examiners so Designate Its Licentiates in Its Official Directory."

11) 6-18-47**  "Subject: Chiropractic Act Did Not Repeal Medical Practice Act, Which May Be Amended With an Implied Exception in Particular Cases if There is A Conflict with Former Act."

12) 6-7-49**    "Subject: Chiropractors: Students Who Began Study of Chiropractic Prior to 1948 Amendment to Chiropractic Act Have No Vested Right in Law as It Existed Before Amendment and Must Complete Four Years of Study Before Being Eligible To Take State Chiropractic Examination."

13) 4-24-52** "Subject: Clinical Laboratory Technician or Technologist may perform skin puncture or venipuncture upon authorization of any person validly licensed to practice the healing arts in this state, if the license of such person authorizes him to diagnose human ailments."  (Opined that this includes on behalf of a licensed chiropractor.)

14) 5-7-54**   "Subject:  Physical Therapy - Enactment of statutes providing for registration and licensing of practitioners of, does not affect right of chiropractor to practice, but he may not hold himself out as licensed or registered physical therapist, unless he complies with statute; after one year from the effective date of licensing statute, nurse, whether in chiropractor's office or elsewhere, may not use physical therapy procedures unless licensed under statute or qualified under exemptions therefrom."

15) 5-21-57** "Subject:  Chiropractor may not remove hemorrhoids by process whereby an anesthetic gelatin is applied and if insufficient to deaden area, needle with narcotic is used, after which electric needle is applied, resulting in sloughing off of dead tissue, without violating Chiropractic Act."

16) 7-29-60** "Subject: Chiropractic License - Rule requiring that applicant for, on reciprocity basis, hold license by a state where the standards at time the license was granted were as high as current California requirements is valid."

17) 4-11-62** "Subject: Chiropractic Act - Performance of venipuncture or piercing of tissue to draw blood specimen for alcohol testing is outside scope of."

18) 9-27-63** "Subject: Public Assistance - State Social Welfare Board in authorizing payments for medical care of recipients of, must provide for rendition of service by all branches of healing arts legally authorized to provide such service and may not exclude certain branches of the healing arts."

19) 12-23-71   "Subject: Unrelated Business Activities of Chiropractic Corporation - A professional chiropractic corporation may participate in unrelated business activity, provided another license, certification or registration is not required and
that the activities conform with the Chiropractic Act and related regulations."

20) 8-12-75** "Subject: Colonic Irrigations - Chiropractor - Advertisement - Since a colonic irrigation constitutes treatment and is therefore the practice of medicine pursuant to the Medical Practice Act, a chiropractor performing colonic irrigation at a patients request but not suggesting such procedure as an ailment remedy is engaged in the practice of medicine.  A chiropractor's advertisement aimed at offering to perform colonic irrigations constitutes a violation of Business and Professions Code section 2141."

21) 1-21-76** "Subject: Practice of Chiropractic - Physical Therapy - Physical Culture - A chiropractor may use physical therapy techniques in his practice of chiropractic to the extent that such techniques are used as an adjunct to chiropractic manipulation, but he may not hold himself out as a physical therapist unless he is licensed to do so.  A physical therapist cannot directly manipulate or adjust the spine or any other bony structure since such activity is a chiropractic technique.  Physical culture as used in California Administrative Code Title 16, section 302 is a term of art dealing with the systematic care and development of the body.  Physical therapy is a system of treatment to rehabilitate or correct bodily or mental conditions.  Physical culture may be involved in a course of physical therapy, but not always."

22) 3-31-76** "Subject:  Chiropractic Requirements - Reciprocity Licenses - 'Same general requirement' as used in section 9 of the Chiropractic Act mean that another state's licensing requirements, upon which reciprocity is sought, must be determined
by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners to have been substantially equal to the requirements for licensing that existed
in California at the time the person seeking reciprocity obtained license."

23) 8-13-76** "Subject" Boards of Chiropractic and Osteopathic Examiners - Business and Professions Code section 102, which provides in part that the Director of Consumer Affairs may take over board duties upon the request of any board regulating, licensing, or controlling any professional or vocational occupation created by an initiative act, does not in itself subject the Initiative Act-created Boards of Chiropractic and Osteopathic Examiners to provisions of Chapters 2 and 3 of Division 1 of said Code. Only the Board of Osteopathic Examiners is subject to Chapters 2 and 3 pursuant to Section 101.  Rules and regulations of the Board of Osteopathic Examiners are subject to approval of the Director of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Section 313.1. The State Controller is not required to issue warrants against the special fund of the Board of Osteopathic Examiners for payment of services of legal counsel not employed pursuant to the State Civil Service Act; only the authorization of said Board's Executive Officer is necessary to allow payment for services of legal counsel properly employed."

24) 8-26-76** "Subject: Concepts of Other Medical Arts in Practice of Chiropractic - By virtue of holding a chiropractic license, a chiropractor cannot practice the art of anything but chiropractic; however, he may employ concepts of anatomy,
bacteriology, diagnosis, physiology, chemistry, hygiene, physiotherapy, and dietetics in a limited and circumscribed
manner, so long as the employment of such concepts does not exceed the limits of the practice of chiropractic.  A
chiropractor cannot, solely by virtue of his chiropractic license, claim to be anything other than a chiropractor."

25) 5-14-80** "Subject: License to Practice Chiropractic - A license to practice chiropractic does not authorize the licensee to assist in the birth of a child by natural childbirthing methods."

26) 2-1-01       (The format of the A.G. Opinions has been changed and the Office no longer follows the "Subject ...."  approach.)  This opinion addresses certain fee splitting issues.