Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1987 )


Menu:
  •                         April 6, 1987
    Tyler A. Baker, D.C.                    Opinion No..lM-668
    President
    Texas Board of Chiropractic             Re: Requirements for licensure
    Examiners                            by reciprocity under section 9
    1300 E. Anderson Lane                   of the Texas Chiropractic Act,
    Building C, Suite 245                   article 4512b. V.T.C.S.
    Austin. Texas   78752
    Dear Dr. Baker:
    As president of the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners. you
    ask about the requircmancs for liceasure by reciprocity in Texas.
    Section 9 of article 4512b. V.T.C.S., provides in part:
    The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners shall
    upon payment by an applicant of a fee gram
    license to practice chiropractic to licentiates of
    other states or territories having requirements
    and practices equal to those established by the
    laws of this State. (Emphasis added).
    The requirements for licensure in Texas include the completion of
    certain basic science college courses. See art. 4512b. 510(d). You
    indicate that certain other states requireapplicants to pass examina-
    tions In basic science courses but do not require the completion of
    the courses  in college. You ask whether this constitutes "requirc-
    ments and practices equal to those established by the laws of this
    State." In specific. you want to know whether you may deny a license
    to an applicant solely on the basis that the state in which the
    applicant is licensed does not require the completion of these basic
    science courses in college.
    Prior to the enactment of article 4512b. the Basic Sciences Law
    required all applicants for licensing in the "healing arts" to obtain
    a certificate of proficiency in anatomy, physiology, chemistry. bac-
    teriology, pathology, and hygiene and public health. See V.T.C.S.
    art. 459Oc. II; repealed by Acts   1979. 66th Leg., ch. 556, $4, at
    1151, 1153. This requirement applied to chiropractors. Attorney
    General Opinion E-1110 (1978). The certificate of proficiency could
    be obtained elcher by passing an examination or by completing college
    courses in the basic sciences. 
    Id. The legislature
    repealed the
    Basic Science Law in 1979. Acts-79.      66th Leg., ch. 556, P4. at
    p. 3059
    Dr. Tyler A. Baker - Page 2   (JM-668)
    1151, 1153. Article 4512b incorporates these basic science courses in
    subsection 10(d) which uow requires
    the satisfactory completion of courses in anatomy.
    ehysiology, chemistry, bacteriology, pathology,
    hygiene -and public -health with au average -of
    seventy-five.perceut (75%) or better in each of
    the courses. (Emphasis added).
    Section 10(d) does uot list testing in the basic         sciences as au
    alternative to course completion.
    You ask whether the completion of courses iu the basic sciences
    constitutes oue of the requirements referred to in section 9 of
    article 4512b. By the plain language of section 10(d) of article
    4512b. Texas law regarding chiropractic liceusure requires the actual
    coupletiou of these basic science courses. The board may therefore
    consider this requirement as one of the requirements for licensure by
    reciprocity under section 9. The board may do so, however, only in a
    reasonable manner. For example, section 10(d) may require the comple-
    tion of courses in a particular sequence. This sequence requirement
    may not be imposed unreasonably to deny licensure by reciprocity. See
    generally Attorney General Opinion JH-512 (1986). AdditioualK
    credits for the completion of college courses may, in some instances,
    be obtained through college examfnacions for advanced credit. The
    phrase "equal to" in section 9 must be interpreted to mean the
    substantial equivalent of rather than identical to; otherwise, no
    chiropractor could be licensed by reciprocity.
    As indicated, section 9 provides, in pertinent part, that
    the board "shall . . . grant license to practice chiropractic to
    licentiates of other states or territories having requirements and
    practices equal to those establlshed" in Texas. The word "shall" is
    generally construed to be mandatory. Green v. County Attorney of
    Anderson County, 
    592 S.W.2d 69
    , 73 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1979, no
    writ1 : Attorney General Ooinion  m-561   (1986).   The ultimate auestion
    is oue of legislative it&t.      The legislature  must have intended that
    if the licensing requirements of the other state or territory are the
    reasonable equivalent to the requirements imposed in Texas. including
    the completion of college courses in the basic sciences, the board
    must grant a license to an applicant licensed in the other state.
    This conclusion does not mean that the board must refuse to issue
    a license to an applicant solely ou the basis that the applicant is
    licensed in a state which does not have requirements identical to
    those imposed in Texas. As indicated, some states require applicants
    to pass examinations in basic science courses but do uoc require the
    completion of the courses in college. The board could determine,
    in its discretion and upon investigation. that the other state's
    testing requirements in the basic sciences constitute the substantial
    equivalent of Texas' requirements. Moreover, in many ianstances. an
    p. 3060
    Dr. Tyler A. Baker - Page 3   (JM-668)
    applicant from another state may in fact meet Texas' basic science
    course requirements. The applicant may have actually completed all of
    the basic science courses required by Texas law in the process of
    preparing for the other state's examination in the basic sciences.
    Denial of licensure by reciprocity to an applicant who meets all
    of the requirements imposed upon Texas applicants solely on the basis
    that the non-Texas applicant is licensed in a state which does not
    itself impose the same requirements would raise serious questions
    under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A
    state cannot exclude a person from an occupation in a manner or for
    reasons that contravene the due process or equal protection clauses of
    the Fourteenth Amendment. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 
    353 U.S. 232
    , 238-39 (1957); see also U.S. Const. art. IV. I)2 (privileges and
    immunities clause); Supreme Court of New Rampshire v. Piper, 
    470 U.S. 274
    (1985); Attorney General Opinion m-348 (1985). A state may apply
    different laws to different classes of persons without violating the
    equal protection clause, but the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the
    different treatment of "similarly situated" persons.
    SUMMARY
    If the chiropractic licensure requirements of
    another state or territory are the reasonable
    equivalent of the requirements imposed in Texas,
    and include the completion of certain basic
    science college courses required under section
    10(d) of article 4512b. V.T.C.S., section 9 of
    article 4512b requires the Texas Board of
    Chiropractic Examiners to grant a license to an
    applicant licensed In the other state.        This
    section does not, however, require the board to
    refuse to issue a license to an applicant solely
    on the basis that the applicant is licensed in a
    state which does not have requirements identical
    to those imposed in Texas.
    Denial of licensure by reciprocity to an
    applicant who actually meets all of the require-
    ments imposed upon Texas applicants solely because
    the .non-Texas applicant is licensed in a state
    which does not itself impose the same requirements
    would raise serious questions under the Fourteenth
    Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    JIM        MATTOX
    Attorney    General of Texas
    p. 3061
    Dr. Tyler A. Baker - Page 4      (m-668)
    JACK HIGRTOWER
    First Assistant Attorney General
    MARTRELLER
    Executive Assistant Attorney    General
    JDDGE ZOLLIE STEARLET
    Special Assistant Attorney     General
    RICR GILPIN
    Chairman. Opinion Committee
    Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
    Assistant Attorney General
    p. 3062
    c
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JM-668

Judges: Jim Mattox

Filed Date: 7/2/1987

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017