Could Texas deny a chiropractor a reciprocal license solely because the chiropractor's home state used basic-science exams instead of required college courses?

Texas AG Opinion JM-668: Chiropractic Reciprocity

Plain-English summary

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners asked whether it could deny reciprocal licenses to chiropractors from states that tested applicants in basic sciences but did not require the same college courses Texas required.

The Attorney General concluded that Texas could treat completion of basic-science college courses as part of its reciprocity review. Section 10(d) required actual completion of courses in anatomy, physiology, chemistry, bacteriology, pathology, hygiene, and public health, rather than merely passing a test.

But the other state's licensing requirements did not have to be identical. The phrase "equal to" in section 9 meant substantially equivalent. The board could determine after investigation that another state's examination requirement provided the substantial equivalent of Texas's course requirement.

The board also had to consider the individual applicant. A chiropractor might have completed all the Texas-required courses even if the licensing state did not require them. Denying that applicant solely because the other state's law differed would raise serious federal constitutional questions.

When another jurisdiction's standards were reasonably equivalent and the applicant met the Texas requirements, section 9's use of "shall" required the board to grant the reciprocal license.

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

Did reciprocity require another state's licensing law to match Texas word for word?

No. The opinion interpreted "equal to" as substantially equivalent, because requiring identical rules would make reciprocity impractical.

Could Texas consider required college coursework?

Yes. Completion of the listed basic-science courses was part of Texas's statutory licensing requirements and could be considered in the reciprocity comparison.

Could an examination substitute for coursework?

The board could determine that another state's examination system was substantially equivalent. The opinion did not impose an automatic rule either way.

What if the applicant personally completed the Texas-required courses?

The board had to consider that fact even if the applicant's licensing state did not itself require the courses.

Why did the opinion discuss the Fourteenth Amendment?

It warned that excluding an otherwise qualified person from an occupation solely because the home state's licensing scheme differed could violate due process or equal protection.

Background and statutory framework

Article 4512b, section 9, directed the board to license chiropractors from other states or territories with requirements and practices equal to Texas's. Section 10(d) required satisfactory completion of specified basic-science courses with an average of at least 75 percent in each.

The earlier Basic Sciences Law had allowed applicants to qualify either by examination or coursework. The Legislature repealed that law in 1979, and the later chiropractic statute did not list testing as an alternative to completing the courses.

JM-668 balanced that Texas-specific requirement with the purpose of reciprocity. It allowed the board to compare substantial equivalence reasonably while preventing formal differences in another state's statute from becoming an automatic bar.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article 4512b, V.T.C.S., sections 9 and 10(d) (chiropractic licensing and reciprocity)
• Former article 4590c, V.T.C.S. (Basic Sciences Law)
• U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
• U.S. Constitution article IV, section 2

Cases:

• Green v. County Attorney of Anderson County, 592 S.W.2d 69, 73 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1979, no writ)
• Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39 (1957)
• Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0668
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0668.pdf

Original opinion text

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

April 6, 1987

Tyler A. Baker, D.C.
President
Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners
1300 E. Anderson Lane
Building C, Suite 245
Austin, Texas 78752

Opinion No. JM-668

Re: Requirements for licensure by reciprocity under section 9 of the Texas Chiropractic Act, article 4512b, V.T.C.S.

Dear Dr. Baker:

As president of the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners, you ask about the requirements for licensure by reciprocity in Texas. Section 9 of article 4512b, V.T.C.S., provides in part:

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners shall upon payment by an applicant of a fee grant license to practice chiropractic to licentiates of other states or territories having requirements and practices equal to those established by the laws of this State. (Emphasis added).

The requirements for licensure in Texas include the completion of certain basic science college courses. See art. 4512b, § 10(d). You indicate that certain other states require applicants to pass examinations in basic science courses but do not require the completion of the courses in college. You ask whether this constitutes "requirements and practices equal to those established by the laws of this State." In specific, you want to know whether you may deny a license to an applicant solely on the basis that the state in which the applicant is licensed does not require the completion of these basic science courses in college.

Prior to the enactment of article 4512b, the Basic Sciences Law required all applicants for licensing in the "healing arts" to obtain a certificate of proficiency in anatomy, physiology, chemistry, bacteriology, pathology, and hygiene and public health. See V.T.C.S. art. 4590c, § 1; repealed by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 556, § 4, at 1151, 1153. This requirement applied to chiropractors. Attorney General Opinion H-1110 (1978). The certificate of proficiency could be obtained either by passing an examination or by completing college courses in the basic sciences. Id. The legislature repealed the Basic Science Law in 1979. Acts 1979, 66th Leg., ch. 556, § 4, at 1151, 1153. Article 4512b incorporates these basic science courses in subsection 10(d) which now requires

the satisfactory completion of courses in anatomy, physiology, chemistry, bacteriology, pathology, hygiene and public health with an average of seventy-five percent (75%) or better in each of the courses. (Emphasis added).

Section 10(d) does not list testing in the basic sciences as an alternative to course completion.

You ask whether the completion of courses in the basic sciences constitutes one of the requirements referred to in section 9 of article 4512b. By the plain language of section 10(d) of article 4512b, Texas law regarding chiropractic licensure requires the actual completion of these basic science courses. The board may therefore consider this requirement as one of the requirements for licensure by reciprocity under section 9. The board may do so, however, only in a reasonable manner. For example, section 10(d) may require the completion of courses in a particular sequence. This sequence requirement may not be imposed unreasonably to deny licensure by reciprocity. See generally Attorney General Opinion JM-512 (1986). Additionally, credits for the completion of college courses may, in some instances, be obtained through college examinations for advanced credit. The phrase "equal to" in section 9 must be interpreted to mean the substantial equivalent of rather than identical to; otherwise, no chiropractor could be licensed by reciprocity.

As indicated, section 9 provides, in pertinent part, that the board "shall . . . grant license to practice chiropractic to licentiates of other states or territories having requirements and practices equal to those established" in Texas. The word "shall" is generally construed to be mandatory. Green v. County Attorney of Anderson County, 592 S.W.2d 69, 73 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1979, no writ); Attorney General Opinion JM-561 (1986). The ultimate question is one of legislative intent. The legislature must have intended that if the licensing requirements of the other state or territory are the reasonable equivalent to the requirements imposed in Texas, including the completion of college courses in the basic sciences, the board must grant a license to an applicant licensed in the other state.

This conclusion does not mean that the board must refuse to issue a license to an applicant solely on the basis that the applicant is licensed in a state which does not have requirements identical to those imposed in Texas. As indicated, some states require applicants to pass examinations in basic science courses but do not require the completion of the courses in college. The board could determine, in its discretion and upon investigation, that the other state's testing requirements in the basic sciences constitute the substantial equivalent of Texas' requirements. Moreover, in many instances, an applicant from another state may in fact meet Texas' basic science course requirements. The applicant may have actually completed all of the basic science courses required by Texas law in the process of preparing for the other state's examination in the basic sciences.

Denial of licensure by reciprocity to an applicant who meets all of the requirements imposed upon Texas applicants solely on the basis that the non-Texas applicant is licensed in a state which does not itself impose the same requirements would raise serious questions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A state cannot exclude a person from an occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39 (1957); see also U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2 (privileges and immunities clause); Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985); Attorney General Opinion JM-348 (1985). A state may apply different laws to different classes of persons without violating the equal protection clause, but the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the different treatment of "similarly situated" persons.

SUMMARY

If the chiropractic licensure requirements of another state or territory are the reasonable equivalent of the requirements imposed in Texas, and include the completion of certain basic science college courses required under section 10(d) of article 4512b, V.T.C.S., section 9 of article 4512b requires the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners to grant a license to an applicant licensed in the other state. This section does not, however, require the board to refuse to issue a license to an applicant solely on the basis that the applicant is licensed in a state which does not have requirements identical to those imposed in Texas.

Denial of licensure by reciprocity to an applicant who actually meets all of the requirements imposed upon Texas applicants solely because the non-Texas applicant is licensed in a state which does not itself impose the same requirements would raise serious questions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General