AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The New Mexico Board of Chiropractic Examiners adopted rules approving an amended advanced practice chiropractic formulary, which included minerals and additional drugs for injection, and a new rule establishing additional educational requirements for advanced practice chiropractic physicians. The New Mexico Board of Pharmacy, the New Mexico Medical Board, and the International Chiropractors Association challenged the formulary for lacking prior approval from the Pharmacy and Medical Boards as required by law. The International Chiropractors Association also challenged the educational requirements rule for lacking necessary prior approval from the Medical Board.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Pharmacy and Medical Boards: Contended that the 2011 formulary was adopted without their approval, violating Section 61-4-9.2(B) of the Chiropractic Physician Practice Act, which mandates such approval for formularies including dangerous drugs or drugs for injection.
• International Chiropractors Association: Argued that the 2011 formulary and the training rule violated statutory requirements for prior approval from the Medical Board and that the Chiropractic Board's regulations required consensus among the Pharmacy, Medical, and Chiropractic Boards for formulary amendments.
• New Mexico Board of Chiropractic Examiners: Argued that the 2011 formulary did not require approval from the Pharmacy and Medical Boards based on their interpretation of Section 61-4-9.2(B), asserting that the statutory language allowed for the inclusion of minerals and additional drugs for injection without such approval. They also contended that the Medical Board's approval was not required for the training rule.

Legal Issues

• Whether the 2011 formulary, including minerals and additional drugs to be administered by injection, violated the requirement of Section 61-4-9.2(B) of the Chiropractic Physician Practice Act for prior approval from the Pharmacy Board and the Medical Board.
• Whether the training rule for advanced practice chiropractic physicians lacked the necessary prior approval from the Medical Board.

Disposition

• The 2011 formulary was set aside for violating the statutory requirement of receiving approval from the Pharmacy Board and the Medical Board.
• The training rule was found to have no fault and was not set aside.

Reasons

• The court held that the 2011 formulary violated Section 61-4-9.2(B) because it included minerals and additional drugs for injection without obtaining prior approval from the Pharmacy Board and the Medical Board, as required by law (paras 1, 8-28). The court found that the statutory language was clear in requiring such approval for formularies that include dangerous drugs or drugs for administration by injection. The court rejected the Chiropractic Board's interpretation of the statute and its request to re-punctuate the statute to align with its intended meaning, stating that it is not the court's role to rewrite statutes (paras 29-34). Regarding the training rule, the court found that the statutory and regulatory requirements only mandated Medical Board approval for the institutions providing the education, not for the rule itself, thus finding no fault with the training rule (paras 35-41).