BOCH CASE DECISION 4-2 IN FAVOR OF PHYSICAL THERAPY PROFESSION, rules against a D.C. advertising such services so as not to mislead general public, hopefully avoiding confusion for both professions.
No new restrictions placed on a D.C's license or scope of practice! Issue was simply the right to Advertise Physical Therapy!
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Highest ruling, State Supreme Court issued their opinion in the long awaited case affirming that it would be illegal for a Doctor of Chiropractic to advertise they perform "Physical Therapy", unless they advertise that they perform Adjunctive Therapy and state in their advertisements that they are in fact Doctors of Chiropractic and not Physical Therapists!
The long awaited decision came at 4:30 PM, Tuesday April 20th, ironically PCA was at The Capital conducting their Legislative Lobby Day when the news was published.
The Chief Justice wrote in his majority decision, that this ruling in no way restricts or limits the right of a Doctor of Chiropractic from performing services they have under their Licensure act of 1986. The Judge further wrote that, " Doctors' of Chiropractic, right to advertise therapies that they are licensed to perform has in no way been restricted by this decision"!
Additionally, it was written, that to no extent have doctors of chiropractic been restricted from advertising that their treatments have therapeutic or rehabilitative effects. Likewise, they are free to advertise the particular physical modalities that their treatments employ. Protecting the public from being mislead about the scope of treatments offered, however validates the prohibition against advertising that chiropractors' perform general "physical therapy." Commonwealth court did not err, therefore in vacating the dismissal of charges against appellants.
ORDER AFFIRMED .
Two judges saw the decision differently:
Justice Cappy and Castille respectfully wrote:
The fallacy inherent in this governmental interest is two fold: (1) chiropractors do, in fact, perform some of the same services as physical therapists; and (2) appellants clearly stated in their advertisements that they were chiropractors. Furthermore, the definition of adjunctive procedures and physical therapy are substantially identical, the majority nevertheless concludes that while there is some overlap in procedures, chiropractors are not the equivalent of physical therapist. There is no question that the two professions are separate and distinct; however the fact remains that the members of those distinct professions provide some of the same services. Appellants are certifies to perform adjunctive procedures therefore they perform some physical therapy. No substantial government interest exists to support the statutory ban on advertising by chiropractors providing physical therapy services.
Eckert Seamen's Cherin & Mellott did a splendid job in arguing this case on behalf of the entire profession in Pennsylvania, although the outcome was not what we had hoped for, we were able to inform the general public that Physical Therapists are not Chiropractors, and that this point was made quite clear in the final Order of the Court.
The Executive Committee will conduct a phone conference tomorrow with the Legal Team to address the outcome of this case and options that we may have open for consideration.
gene g. veno,
PCA
