Could the Texas chiropractic board treat written x-ray questions and x-ray interpretation as separate subjects and require a 60 percent score on each?

Texas AG Opinion JM-658: Chiropractic X-Ray Exam Scores

Plain-English summary

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners used two x-ray components in its licensing examination: a written portion covering x-ray technology and an interpretation portion requiring applicants to read particular x-rays. The board required at least 60 percent on each component. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

The Attorney General concluded that the board could examine applicants on x-rays and could divide the examination into theoretical and practical parts. But section 12 of article 4512b required at least 60 percent "in any one subject," and the opinion treated x-rays as one subject rather than two. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

The board therefore could not use the two components as separate subjects and require an independent 60 percent score on each. It remained free to structure the x-ray examination in different ways, including asking only interpretation questions. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could the board test both x-ray theory and x-ray interpretation?

Yes. The opinion found no impediment to testing x-rays in two parts, one theoretical and one practical. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Did section 12 expressly list x-rays as an examination subject?

No. The opinion said the statute's list was not exclusive and also pointed to the broader listed subject of "pathology and analysis of the human spine." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Why could the board not require 60 percent on each x-ray component?

Because the statute required the minimum grade in each "subject." The opinion reasoned that any subject could be divided into narrower parts, but x-rays still constituted one subject for that grading rule. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Could the board choose to test only x-ray interpretation?

Yes. The opinion said the board was not compelled to structure examinations in any particular way and could, for example, ask only interpretation questions. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Section 12 of article 4512b required chiropractic licensing examinations to be written, fair and impartial, and conducted so applicants were identified to examiners only by number until grades and licensing decisions were determined. It required an average grade of at least 75 percent and no less than 60 percent in any one subject. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

The listed subjects included anatomy-histology, chemistry, bacteriology, physiology, symptomatology, pathology and analysis of the human spine, and hygiene and public health. The opinion read that list as nonexclusive. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Citations and references

• Section 12 of article 4512b, V.T.C.S.
• sec. 14b

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0658
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0658.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS

March 27, 1987

JIM MATTOX
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Honorable Chet Brooks
Chairman
Health and Human Resources Committee
Texas State Senate
P. O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711

Opinion No. JM-658

Re: Authority of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners with regard to administration of its licensing examination

Dear Senator Brooks:

You request our opinion regarding the authority of the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners to adopt certain procedures with respect to its licensing examination. Section 12 of article 4512b, V.T.C.S., provides, in pertinent part:

All examinations for license to practice chiropractic shall be conducted in writing in the English language and in such manner as to be entirely fair and impartial to all applicants. All applicants shall be known to the examiners only by numbers, without names or other method of identification on examination papers by which members of the Board may be able to identify such applicants, or examinees, until after the general averages of the examinees' numbers in the class have been determined, and license granted or refused. Examinations shall be conducted on practical and theoretical chiropractic and in the subjects of anatomy-histology, chemistry, bacteriology, physiology, symptomatology, pathology and analysis of the human spine, and hygiene and public health. Upon satisfactory examination, conducted as aforesaid under the rules of the Board, which shall consist of an average grade of not less than seventy-five per cent (75%) with not less than sixty per cent (60%) in any one subject, applicants shall be granted license to practice chiropractic. . . . (Emphasis added).

The board at present conducts one examination designated "x-ray written" and another designated "x-ray interpretation." The former includes written questions about x-ray technology. The latter, "x-ray interpretation," consists of the applicant's "reading" particular x-rays. The board requires a grade of at least 60% in each of these two categories, and then averages those grades together with grades in other subject areas. You ask whether the board may properly treat "x-ray written" and "x-ray interpretation" as two distinct subjects for purposes of the 60% grade requirement.

Section 12 does not include "x-rays" among the subjects on which an applicant must be examined, but it is clear that the list specified therein is not exclusive. See also sec. 14b. Moreover, section 12 includes the general subject "pathology and analysis of the human spine." There is, in our opinion, no impediment to the board's conducting an examination on the subject of "x-ray." Nor is there an impediment to the examination consisting of two parts, one theoretical and one practical.

The board may not, however, consider the two parts as two separate subjects for purposes of section 12. The language of the statute requires a grade of at least 60% "in any one subject." (Emphasis added.) Although any one subject can be broken down into numerous narrower subjects, we think that "subject" must be given a reasonable construction and that, as a result, "x-rays" constitutes "one subject" only. See sec. 14b. The board is not compelled to structure examinations in any particular way: it may, for example, pose only "interpretation" questions thereon. What it may not do is to divide the one "subject" of "x-rays" into two parts for the purpose of requiring a 60% grade in each.

SUMMARY

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners may not divide the one "subject" of "x-rays" into two parts for the purpose of requiring a 60% grade in each pursuant to section 12 of article 4512b, V.T.C.S.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General