At the heart of the matter is the fact that the SBOI has never shown any enthusiasm for enforcing the laws as written by the Texas Legislature.
Chiropractors complained of carrier abuse in ever increasing numbers. The standard reply of SBOI was that the equality laws were subject to varying interpretations and that no violations had occurred.
Yes, of course it was subject to varying interpretations. It was deliberately written in that manner. The same forethought is why poems rhyme and short stories are short.
The commissioner of insurance eventually felt a bit of heat and asked the attorney general of Texas for a ruling to spell out the exact meaning and legislative intent of the Insurance Equality law. Back came the official attorney general's opinion (JM-301): The attorney general said it was the intent of the legislature to indeed have insurance equality, just as the chiropractors had insisted; that it was the duty of the SBOI to enforce the law as written and not allow subterfuge, such as altering terminology, allowing time and place limitations, and other patent violations to occur.
JM-301 was blunt and forthright; everyone understood it, except those determined to undermine it.
Finally, in 1987, chief deputy Woody Poague stood before the assembled Chiropractic Board of Directors and read a letter directing every carrier in the state of Texas to specifically follow JM-301, as it applied to the Texas Insurance Equality law (21.52). While the number (21.52) may seem numbing to outsiders, the Texans who have wrestled with this problem embrace it as they would a long lost friend.
Mr. Poague went on to say he had no idea of the dimensions of the problem and that if other problems came up, his door would always be open. Those chiropractors who had repeatedly sat cooling their heels in Mr. Poague's waiting room hour after hour almost choked on this remark. Several times, after flying to Austin to meet with Mr. Poague, their meetings had been abruptly cancelled. On other occasions they did speak with Mr. Poague, did explain the problem, but were ushered out with numerous excuses, none of which were satisfying or valid.
It soon became apparent that Mr. Poague had no intention of doing anything except sending the letter. Its distribution changed nothing because SBOI rarely enforced any violation of 21.52 as illuminated by JM-301. As the complaints of carrier abuse never ceased, another commissioner of insurance wrote the attorney general with a list of specific questions. The attorney general responded that the list of questions had already been answered by JM-301.
The chiropractors' choices were narrowing: sue the SBOI; secure an injunction demanding they enforce the law, which would be followed by charges of malfeasance in office, if they did not; or mount a publicity campaign demanding their resignation or removal. There were a few who suggested filing in federal courts for civil rights violations because of the deliberate skewering of rules which deprived Texans of the constitutionally guaranteed "due process" before being deprived of liberty or property. The latter could invite both civil and criminal penalties if pursued successfully. Considerable preparation was made in the gathering evidence and documentation, but action was delayed when changes in the SBOI occurred.
Mr. Poague left, and three new members of the SBOI were appointed. The chiropractors requested a public hearing. It became painfully obvious within a few minutes of the meeting that the members of the board knew nothing of the problem or their duties in that regard, and relied on "staff" for guidance.
Perhaps in the 30-day interval that has since occurred, they will seriously consider issues and consequences. Reliance on "staff" will insure controversy and court proceedings.
Chiropractors ask them to obey the law; that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Walter R. Rhodes, D.C.
Fort Worth, Texas