N.J. Supreme Court to hear scope-of-practice case

N.J. Supreme Court to hear scope-of-practice case
October, 2007
Chiropractic Economics.

The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear arguments that could re-establish the scope of chiropractic in the state to include extremity adjusting. The court will also review materials not originally introduced into testimony in the original trial.

On Sept. 25, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bedford vs. Riello case, which, in April, resulted in a ruling from a panel of the appellate court that rendered extremity adjustments outside the legal scope of chiropractic practice in New Jersey.

In the original case, an Ocean County woman alleged she suffered torn cartilage because of adjustments on her left knee in 1999. In the original trial, the plaintiff asked the judge to rule that New Jersey chiropractors not be permitted by law to adjust outside of the spinal column.

The judge denied the request. Consequently, the plaintiffÌs expert witness was barred from testifying. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed, and the ruling of the appellate panel favored the plaintiff. (See ÏN.J. court strikes down extra-spinal adjustments,Ó www.chiroeco.com/Bedford for more information.)

Immediately following the appellate courtÌs ruling in Bedford vs. Riello, attorneys for the defendant chiropractors in the underlying malpractice case filed a petition with the New Jersey Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of the decision. The Association of New Jersey Chiropractors (ANJC) filed an extensive amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the defendant chiropractorsÌ petition.

During the course of the appellate divisionÌs consideration of the case, the attorneys for the defendant chiropractors sought to introduce a number of materials into the record on appeal. Because these materials had not been first provided to the trial court, the appellate division refused to consider them.

Following the appellate divisionÌs lead, the Supreme Court also initially refused to consider these same materials by denying a motion to expand the record on appeal. In its brief, ANJC stressed the importance of considering close to 20 years of public session comments made by both the Board of Medical Examiners, which first authorized extremity adjustments in the early 1980s, and the Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

The Supreme Court reversed its previous decision and decided to expand the record to include these materials.

Final disposition of the case is expected within two to three months.

According to Sig Miller, DC, ANJCÌs executive director, more than 30,000 patients signed petitions asking the court to reverse the appellate decision.

Miller said the American Chiropractic Association assisted in supporting ANJC in its legal efforts.