A. A doctor of chiropractic is a portal of entry health care provider who engages in the practice of health care that includes:
1. The diagnosis and correction of subluxations, functional vertebral or articular dysarthrosis or neuromuscular skeletal disorders for restoring and maintaining health.
2. Physical and clinical examinations, diagnostic x-rays and clinical diagnostic laboratory procedures that are limited to nasal swabs, oral swabs, sputum collection, urine collection, finger pricks or venipuncture in order to determine the propriety of a regimen of chiropractic care or to form a basis for referring patients to other licensed health care professionals, or both.
3. Treatment by:
(a) Physical medicine modalities, therapeutic procedures and adjustment of the spine or bodily articulations.
(b) Procedures related to the correction of subluxations and neuromuscular skeletal disorders.
(c) Prescription of orthopedic supports.
(d) Acupuncture.
B. A doctor of chiropractic who is licensed under this chapter shall not prescribe or administer medicine or drugs, perform surgery or practice obstetrics.
Notes of Decisions
Bilbrey v. Indus. Comm'n, 556 P.2d 27 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 32-925 states the privileges and limits of the practice of chiropractic: A person licensed under this chapter to practice chiropractic may adjust by hand any articulations of the spinal column.”
Hooper v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 617 P.2d 538 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “” Noting that A.R.S. § 32-925 allowed chiropractors to “adjust by hand any articulation of the spinal column” the court reasoned that chiropractors would be considered competent to diagnose conditions which required such treatment and to testify as to their causes.”
Chalupa v. Indus. Comm'n, 498 P.2d 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “2d 247 (1947); A.R.S. § 32-925, as amended.” Kay v. Industrial Commission, supra at n.”
Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 555 P.2d 126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “§§ 23-1021A and 23-1062A, an injured employee is entitled to receive “medical, surgical and hospital benefits”; that under A.R.S. § 32-925, a chiropractor is prohibited from administering medicine, or practicing surgery or any other branch of medicine; and that therefore…”
Chalupa v. Indus. Comm'n, 509 P.2d 610 (Ariz. 1973).
“” § 32-925 A.R.S. While we agree that a chiropractor is limited as an expert witness to his field of endeavor only, we do not believe that a statute which allows him to manipulate or treat by hand articulations of the spinal column denies him the right to diagnose the reasons…”
Kay v. Indus. Comm'n, 496 P.2d 875 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “2d 247 (1947); A.R.S. § 32-925, as amended.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.