I. THE FORMULARY ADOPTED BY APPELLEE IS CONTRARY TO LAW, SPECIFICALLY SECTION61-4-9.2(B), BECAUSE APPELLEE FAILED TO OBTAIN BOTH APPELLANTS' PRIOR APPROVAL OF ALL DRUGS INCLUDED IN THAT FORMULARY:
A. Any Chiropractic Formulary That Includes a Dangerous Drug
or Controlled Substance, a Drug for Administration by Injection,
or Any Substance Not Listed in Section61-4-9.2(A) Must Be Approved
by Both Appellants
B. The Formulary Improperly Included "Drugs for Administration by
Injection "Without Obtaining Prior Approval by Both Appellants Because
Such Drugs Are Statutorily Defined as "DangerousDrugs"
NMMB/NMBoP Argument #2:
II. A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 61-4-9.2(B) SHOWS THAT EACH OF THE THREE SENTENCES BUILD ON EACH OTHER, AND IMPOSE SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTING A FORMULARY
Brief #2: ICA:
The International Chiropractors Association filed similar arguments. They were as follows:
ICA Argument #1:
I. The Chiropractic Board's Adoption of Its 2011 Formulary Is Contrary to Statute
a. The Plain Language of the Chiropractic Physician Act Shows that Pharmacy
and Medical Board Approvals Are Required
b. Other Related Statutes Show that Pharmacy and Medical Board Approvals
ICA Argument #2:
II. The Chiropractic Board's Adoption of Its 2011 Formulary Is in Violation of Its Own Rules
a. Chiropractic Board Rules Require Pharmacy and Medical Board Approval for
Expansion of the Formulary
b. Chiropractic Board Rules Require Medical Board Approval for Training Programs
to Certify Advanced Practice Chiropractic Physicians
c. The Training Prescribed by the Chiropractic Board Fails to Meet Statutory and
ICA Argument #3:
III. The Chiropractic Board Must Fulfill Its Statutory Mandate and Act to Protect the Health and Well-Being of the Citizens of the State
Brief # 3: NMBCE:
The NMBCE filed arguments suggesting that their current interpretation was valid based upon sentence structure and punctuation.
NMBCE Argument #1:
I. The Chiropractic Board's interpretation of Section 61-4-9.2(A) and (B)is correct because it follows the canons of statutory construction.
A. The Chiropractic Board's interpretation of Section 61-4-9.2 (A) and (B) is correct
because it follows the canon of statutory construction regarding the plain meaning
of the text.
B. Appellants' interpretation of the third sentence of Section 61-4-9.2(B) IS wrong
because it violates the canon of statutory construction that other sentences cannot
be read to be surplusage.
1. Appellants' argument IS equivalent to a mathematical proof.
2. Appellants' interpretation turns the second sentence into surplusage.
C. The Chiropractic Board's interpretationof Section61-4-9.2(A) and (B) is correct
because it follows the canon of statutory construction regarding the re-punctuation
of a sentence.
NMBCE Argument #2:
II. The Chiropractic Board's interpretation of Section 61-4-9.2(A) and (B) is correct and therefore it did not violate any laws or rules.
NMBCE Argument #3:
III. Appellants have withdrawn their argument about22.214.171.124NMAC.
Brief #4: ACA Amicus Brief:
The ACA filed an Amicus Brief on September 13, 2012 which offered the following arguments in suppport of the NMBCE:
ACA Argument #1:
A. Doctors of Chiropractic Are Highly Trained Health Care Providers Whose Professional Perspective Provided Through the Board of Chiropractic Examiners Should Be Afforded Equal Deference by the Court