‘Chiropractic Physician’ and ‘Physical Therapy’ in Advertising: Board Authority and Statutory Interpretation
Dr. A, a Mississippi-licensed chiropractor in Jackson, runs a six-week radio and newspaper campaign calling herself a ‘Chiropractic Physician’ and listing ‘physical therapy, spinal decompression, and nutritional counseling’ among her services. A competitor files a complaint with the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, alleging that ‘physician’ implies medical licensure and that ‘physical therapy’ is a protected title under the physical therapy practice act. The Board’s notice of hearing cites the Act’s definition of chiropractic, its general authority to regulate the practice, and a Board rule prohibiting misleading advertising. Dr. A responds that the Act does not expressly define ‘physician,’ that ‘physiotherapy’ has long been part of chiropractic, and that the Board is improperly expanding its authority. The Board schedules a contested case hearing. Dr. A has no prior discipline, but the ad generated 14 new patients in six weeks.
1. What sources of authority permit the Board to regulate Dr. A’s advertising, and how should the Board handle the undefined term ‘physician’?
Read the worked answer
The Board’s authority comes from the chiropractic practice act, which creates the Board, grants it power to license and regulate chiropractors, and authorizes rules to protect the public. A general misleading-advertising rule is a valid exercise of that authority if it is reasonably related to the statute’s purpose. The Act need not define every term; agencies routinely interpret terms in light of the practice act and related statutes. ‘Physician’ is not a neutral synonym for ‘doctor’: it can imply authority to practice medicine, which chiropractors lack. The Board may look to the medical practice act and the physical therapy practice act to determine whether a title is reserved. For ‘physical therapy,’ the Board should distinguish lawful chiropractic physiotherapy-adjunctive modalities used within chiropractic care-from holding out as a licensed physical therapist. The Board cannot rewrite the statute, but it can enforce a reasonable interpretation. Dr. A’s claim that the term is undefined does not strip the Board of authority; it shifts the analysis to whether the Board’s interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the statutory scheme.
2. How should a reviewing court apply Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act standards to the Board’s interpretation of ‘chiropractic’ and ‘physician’?
Read the worked answer
Under the Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act, the Board’s contested-case decision must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and must not be arbitrary, capricious, or beyond statutory authority. On appeal, the circuit court reviews legal questions de novo but generally gives deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers, especially when the interpretation is longstanding and consistent. For ‘chiropractic,’ the court would ask whether the Board’s reading fits the statutory definition and does not encroach on medicine or physical therapy. For ‘physician,’ the court would ask whether the Board’s position is a permissible construction or an unauthorized expansion. If the Board has adopted a rule or issued interpretive guidance, that strengthens its position; if it is applying an unwritten policy ad hoc, the court may be less deferential. The court would also check whether Dr. A had notice of the standard and a meaningful hearing. The Board should build a record: dictionary definitions, related statutes, expert testimony, and the ad itself. Dr. A’s lack of prior discipline affects sanction, not authority.
3. Evaluate Dr. A’s two advertising claims separately. What outcome and corrective action are likely?
Read the worked answer
The two claims should be analyzed separately. ‘Chiropractic Physician’ is the weaker claim for Dr. A. Even if the Act does not expressly forbid the phrase, it can mislead the public into thinking she has medical staff privileges or a medical license. The Board can require a disclaimer or prohibit the title if it finds likely deception. ‘Physical therapy’ is also risky: if Dr. A is not licensed by the physical therapy board, using that phrase as a service description may violate the physical therapy practice act and the chiropractic advertising rule. By contrast, ‘physiotherapy’ or ‘adjunctive physiotherapy’ may be within chiropractic scope if it accurately describes modalities she is trained and authorized to provide. The likely outcome is a finding of misleading advertising, a cease-and-desist order, a civil penalty, and a requirement to submit future ads for review. Because there is no prior discipline and no patient harm, revocation is unlikely. Dr. A should immediately revise the ads, remove ‘physician’ and ‘physical therapy,’ document the modalities she actually provides, and correct any insurer or directory listings.