Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 146.01 (2026)

Definition; Practicing Healing And Practice Of Healing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The term "practicing healing" or "practice of healing" shall mean and include any person who shall in any manner for any fee, gift, compensation, or reward, or in expectation thereof, engage in, or hold out to the public as being engaged in, the practice of medicine or surgery, the practice of osteopathic medicine, the practice of chiropractic, the practice of any legalized method of healing, or the diagnosis, analysis, treatment, correction, or cure of any disease, injury, defect, deformity, infirmity, ailment, or affliction of human beings, or any condition or conditions incident to pregnancy or childbirth, or examination into the fact, condition, or cause of human health or disease, or who shall, for any fee, gift, compensation, or reward, or in expectation thereof, suggest, recommend, or prescribe any medicine or any form of treatment, correction, or cure thereof; also any person, or persons, individually or collectively, who maintains an office for the reception, examination, diagnosis, or treatment of any person for any disease, injury, defect, deformity, or infirmity of body or mind, or who attaches the title of doctor, physician, surgeon, specialist, M.D., M.B., D.O., D.C., or any other word, abbreviation, or title to the person's name indicating, or designed to indicate, that the person is engaged in the practice of healing.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1971–2010 · leading case: Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 513 (Minn. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 513 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 24× “See Minn.Stat. § 146.01. Second, we generally presume that "statutory law is consistent with common law" and that if the statute is intended to abrogate the common law, the abrogation must be "by express wording or necessary implication.”

Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 689 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 146.01 (2002) (defining the practice of healing).”

Spine Imaging MRI, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (D. Minnesota 2010). · cites it 2× “9 (emphasis added) (quoting Minn.Stat. § 146.01 (2004)). After analyzing whether the clinics “practiced healing” and reviewing public policy considerations, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the corporate practice of medicine doctrine did not apply to massage therapy or…”

Underhill v. Knox, 355 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “First, Knox relies on Minn.Stat. § 146.01 (1982) which defines the practice of healing to include the practice of medicine or surgery, the practice of osteopathy, and the practice of chiropractic.”

Ingebritson v. Tjernlund Mfg. Co., 183 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1971). “1, the opinion refers only to §§ 146.01 and 148.01, subd. 1, virtually without contextual reference to the controlling statute itself.”

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.