The Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board, the administrative agency involved, adopted the state rule in 1995 to ban "Network Chiropractic." Wisconsin was the only state to ostracize the practice of Network Chiropractic.
Not long after the rule was passed, Innate Intelligence, Inc., Network developer Donald Epstein, DC, and two Wisconsin DCs filed suit against the Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board and its members, challenging the rule under the federal civil rights laws.
Wisconsin statutes authorize judicial review of the validity of administrative agency rules. Any one of three criteria will bring the court to declare administrative rules invalid: if the rule violates the Constitution; if the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopts it; or if the adoption of the rule did not comply with rulemaking procedures. The plaintiffs contended that all three grounds were applicable.
On November 20, 1997, Judge Sarah O'Brian granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs (Innate Intelligence et al.), concluding that a portion of the rule established by the Wisconsin Board regarding Network Chiropractic was "unconstitutionally vague":
"I do conclude that the use of the phrase Network Chiropractic in each of (board rule subparagraphs) f, g, and h is unconstitutionally vague.While the language of the ruling has yet to be drafted, other issues remain. Still to be decided is if the individual members of the Wisconsin Board are immune from suit and claims for damages by the plaintiffs. The other unknown factor is whether the board will appeal the ruling once it is formalized."If I find that portion of the rule is unconstitutionally vague, I think I have no choice but to declare that the rule itself is invalid, and I would do so and grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs."
Dynamic Chiropractic editorial staff members research, investigate and write articles for the publication on an ongoing basis. To contact the Editorial Department or submit an article of your own for consideration, email
.