Four chiropractors (three of whom were plaintiffs in the Tain case) have filed a petition for the
California Board of Chiropractors Examiners (BCE) to review and reconsider the original intent of
the 1922 Chiropractic Act and certain subsequent amendments relating to "elective" education
and training of chiropractors.  They filed the action on their own behalf as chiropractors and on
behalf of all other chiropractors.  They also filed the petition as themselves chiropractic patients
and they were joined by one additional person who is a chiropractic patient, but not a chiropractor.

Two pertinent documents may be presently viewed with respect to the pending petition.  As of
June 21, 2007 the BCE agreed to commence the statutory review process sought in the petition. 
Additional information about this petition and the BCE's actions will be added intermittently
through this page.

PENDING FILINGS RELATIVE TO RECONSIDERATION OF SCOPE ISSUES:

       Petition to Define Practice Rights and To Amend, Repeal and/or Adopt Scope
        Practice Regulations, as Needed - filed April 2, 2007

        Extension letter (granting BCE until June 7, 2007 to either deny the petition or commence
        the review process)

        July 17, 2007 CHART (presented to a committee of the BCE on date indicated - outlines the
        "Petition to Define Practice Rights" cited above.)

RELATED FILING RELATIVE TO WHAT THE A.G.'S OFFICE TOLD THE BCE ABOUT
THE TAIN CASE:

 In the "Petition to Define Practice Rights . . . " we provided for a three phase process:

        1) Determine and define the original intent of the chiropractic act, as amended;

        2) Determine whether the BCE has the authority to presently adopt a new practice rule; and

        3) Establish reasonable standards for elective education and training and related practice rights.

Some persons may, in phase (2), choose to argue that the BCE does not presently have the right to
re-define the original intent as that was determined by the Fowler, Crees and Tain cases.  The
full contents of the 1922 ballot measure was not brought before the courts in Fowler or Crees. The Tain
court refused to consider the entire act by raising some purported technical deficiencies in the
case as presented. (incorrectly - see Petition for Reconsideration under Appeal Record button)
In the Crees case, the Deputy Attorney General representing the BCE took the position that his
own client's (BCE's) then scope of practice rule (1954 Rule 302) was invalid.  (There is no evidence
that the AG's Office had the consent of the BCE to do this - or even that the BCE knew about it.
See next paragraph.)

It is my belief that the Attorney General's Office did not properly inform the BCE about what was being
sought in the Tain case.  Therefore, at the time I filed the Petition to Define Practice Rights, and in my
own name, I also filed a "Request for Inspection and/or Copying of Public Records" to determine exactly
what the AG's Office told the BCE about the Tain case.  However, I do not need that information until
the BCE gets into phase (2).  Therefore, I informed the BCE in the "extension letter" (see above) that it did
not need to respond to the "public records" request unless and until I gave them further notice to do so. 
In any event, a copy of the "Request" may be reviewed as indicated below.

        Request for Inspection and/or Copying of Public Records (filed April 2, 2007)