Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 333 / Act 368 of 1978
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401 (2026)

Definitions; scope; principles of construction.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE


Act 368 of 1978


333.16401 Definitions; scope; principles of construction.

Sec. 16401.

    (1) As used in this part:

    (a) "Chiropractor", "chiropractic physician", "doctor of chiropractic", or "d.c." means an individual licensed under this article to engage in the practice of chiropractic.

    (b) "Dislocation" means complete disruption in the normal relationship of 2 bones forming a joint resulting in no contact of the articular surfaces. A dislocation does not include a subluxation.

    (c) "Joint dysfunction" means a joint that is impaired so that it does not function properly.

    (d) "Musculoskeletal system" means the system of muscles, tendons, ligaments, bones, joints, and associated tissues that moves the body and maintains its form.

    (e) "Practice of chiropractic" means that discipline within the healing arts that deals with the human nervous system and the musculoskeletal system and their interrelationship with other body systems. Practice of chiropractic includes the following:

    (i) The diagnosis of human conditions and disorders of the human musculoskeletal and nervous systems as they relate to subluxations, misalignments, and joint dysfunctions. These diagnoses shall be for the purpose of detecting and correcting those conditions and disorders or offering advice to seek treatment from other health professionals in order to restore and maintain health.

    (ii) The evaluation of conditions or symptoms related to subluxations, misalignments, and joint dysfunction through any of the following:

    (A) Physical examination.

    (B) The taking and reviewing of patient health information.

    (C) The performance, ordering, or use of tests. The performance, ordering, or use of tests in the practice of chiropractic is regulated by rules promulgated under section 16423.

    (D) The performance, ordering, or use of x-ray.

    (E) The performance, ordering, or use of tests that were allowed under section 16423 as of December 1, 2009.

    (iii) The chiropractic adjustment of subluxations, misalignments, and joint dysfunction and the treatment of related bones and tissues for the establishment of neural integrity and structural stability.

    (iv) The use of physical measures, analytical instruments, nutritional advice, rehabilitative exercise, and adjustment apparatus regulated by rules promulgated under section 16423.

    (2) The practice of chiropractic does not include any of the following:

    (a) The performance of any procedure that cuts or punctures the skin.

    (b) The dispensing or prescribing of drugs or medicine.

    (c) Except for diagnostic purposes only, the use of x-ray.

    (d) The performance of an invasive procedure involving a body orifice or cavity unless allowed by rules promulgated under section 16423 and limited to examinations involving the ears, nose, and throat.

    (e) The treatment of fractures or dislocations.

    (f) The performance or ordering of non-x-ray diagnostic imaging tests that were not allowed under section 16423 as of December 1, 2009.

    (3) In addition to the definitions in this part, article 1 contains general definitions and principles of construction applicable to all articles in this act and part 161 contains definitions applicable to this part.

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 734, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 2002 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 223, Imd. Eff. Jan. 5, 2010

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of powers and duties of certain health-related functions, boards, and commissions from the Department of Licensing and Regulation to the Department of Commerce, see E.R.O. No. 1991-9, compiled at MCL 338.3501 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

PopularName Notes:

Act 368
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Measel v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., 886 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Measel v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., 886 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 29× “Measel responded that the services were reimbursable because they fell under the current definition of “practice of chiropractic” provided by MCL 333.16401. She argued that the “new” definition, effective January 5, 2010, “was intended to supplant and replace the prior version…”
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 373 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 14× “See MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Hofmann v. Auto Club Ins., 535 N.W.2d 529 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “, and the Public Health Code relative to the practice of chiropractic, MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Braford v. O’connor Chiropractic Clinic, 624 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “As early as 1925, which was before the Legislature enacted MCL 333.16401; MSA 14.15(16401), the Michigan Supreme Court held in Janssen v Mulder 15 that when a chiropractor treats a patient, the chiropractor has a duty “to use reasonable care and skill” to determine if the…”
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 335 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 9× “See, now, MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Thomson v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 350 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “MCL 333.16401(1)(b); MSA 14.15(16401)(1)(b).”
MacDonald v. Barbarotto, 411 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “First, plaintiff argues that his claim is not grounded in malpractice, but essentially in tor-tious fraud and misrepresentation, and was timely filed within the three-year period of limitation applicable to such claims.”
Attorney Gen. v. Recorder's Court Judge, 285 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “” MCL 333.16401; MSA 14.15(16401). 4 Deborah Jacobs testified that she did receive some spinal manipulations for a back problem.”
Demido v. Attorney Gen., 299 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “” MCL 333.16401(l)(b); MSA 14.15(16401)(l)(b).”
Cotter v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 288 N.W.2d 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “…of construction applicable to all articles in this code and part 161 contains definitions applicable to this part.” MCL 333.16401; MSA 14.15(16401).”
Karaskiewicz v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 336 N.W.2d 757 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “AS MCL 333.16401(l)(b)(iii); MSA 14.15(16401)(l)(b)(iii) excludes surgery from the definition of chiropractic, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in finding these two procedures not medically necessary when administered by chiropractors.”
Precise Mri of Michigan LLC v. State Auto Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 30× “Defendant specifically argued that MRI scans were not included in the definition of “practice of chiropractic” under MCL 333.16401 as of January 1, 2009, as required by MCL 500.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1) — 4 cases
Measel v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., 886 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Measel responded that the services were reimbursable because they fell under the current definition of “practice of chiropractic” provided by MCL 333.16401. She argued that the “new” definition, effective January 5, 2010, “was intended to supplant and replace the prior version…”
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 373 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1985). “See MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Precise Mri of Michigan LLC v. State Auto Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant specifically argued that MRI scans were not included in the definition of “practice of chiropractic” under MCL 333.16401 as of January 1, 2009, as required by MCL 500.”
Diane Nasrallah v. Argonaut-Midwest Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1)(b) — 3 cases
Thomson v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 350 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “MCL 333.16401(1)(b); MSA 14.15(16401)(1)(b).”
Cons. & Ind. Svcs. v. Hoffman, 583 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
Precise Mri of Michigan LLC v. State Auto Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant specifically argued that MRI scans were not included in the definition of “practice of chiropractic” under MCL 333.16401 as of January 1, 2009, as required by MCL 500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1)(b)(i) — 2 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 373 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1985). “See MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Precise Mri of Michigan LLC v. State Auto Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant specifically argued that MRI scans were not included in the definition of “practice of chiropractic” under MCL 333.16401 as of January 1, 2009, as required by MCL 500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1)(b)(iii) — 4 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 373 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1985). “See MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 335 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “See, now, MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Precise Mri of Michigan LLC v. State Auto Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant specifically argued that MRI scans were not included in the definition of “practice of chiropractic” under MCL 333.16401 as of January 1, 2009, as required by MCL 500.”
Diane Nasrallah v. Argonaut-Midwest Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1)(c) — 1 case
Theresa Lynn Wilcox v. Jamie Lee Beals (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1)(d) — 1 case
Theresa Lynn Wilcox v. Jamie Lee Beals (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1)(e) — 2 cases
20250130_C365767_52_365767.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Theresa Lynn Wilcox v. Jamie Lee Beals (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(1)(e)(i) — 2 cases
20250130_C365767_52_365767.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Theresa Lynn Wilcox v. Jamie Lee Beals (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(2) — 2 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 373 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1985). “See MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Theresa Lynn Wilcox v. Jamie Lee Beals (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(b) — 1 case
Precise Mri of Michigan LLC v. State Auto Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant specifically argued that MRI scans were not included in the definition of “practice of chiropractic” under MCL 333.16401 as of January 1, 2009, as required by MCL 500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(b)(iii) — 1 case
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 335 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “See, now, MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(l)(b) — 4 cases
Hofmann v. Auto Club Ins., 535 N.W.2d 529 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “, and the Public Health Code relative to the practice of chiropractic, MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Measel v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., 886 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Measel responded that the services were reimbursable because they fell under the current definition of “practice of chiropractic” provided by MCL 333.16401. She argued that the “new” definition, effective January 5, 2010, “was intended to supplant and replace the prior version…”
Demido v. Attorney Gen., 299 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “” MCL 333.16401(l)(b); MSA 14.15(16401)(l)(b).”
Dep't of Consum. & Indus. Servs. v. Hoffmann, 583 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(l)(b)(i) — 1 case
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 373 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1985). “See MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(l)(b)(iii) — 4 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 373 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1985). “See MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Karaskiewicz v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 336 N.W.2d 757 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “AS MCL 333.16401(l)(b)(iii); MSA 14.15(16401)(l)(b)(iii) excludes surgery from the definition of chiropractic, we cannot say the trial court clearly erred in finding these two procedures not medically necessary when administered by chiropractors.”
Attorney Gen. v. Beno, 335 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “See, now, MCL 333.16401 et seq.; MSA 14.15(16401) et seq.”
Demido v. Attorney Gen., 299 N.W.2d 43 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “” MCL 333.16401(l)(b); MSA 14.15(16401)(l)(b).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(l)(e) — 2 cases
Measel v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., 886 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Measel responded that the services were reimbursable because they fell under the current definition of “practice of chiropractic” provided by MCL 333.16401. She argued that the “new” definition, effective January 5, 2010, “was intended to supplant and replace the prior version…”
Michigan Ass'n of Chiropractors v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 834 N.W.2d 148 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(l)(e)(ti)(A) — 1 case
Measel v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., 886 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Measel responded that the services were reimbursable because they fell under the current definition of “practice of chiropractic” provided by MCL 333.16401. She argued that the “new” definition, effective January 5, 2010, “was intended to supplant and replace the prior version…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16401(lXb) — 1 case
Thomson v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 350 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “MCL 333.16401(1)(b); MSA 14.15(16401)(1)(b).”
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.