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

          Are Required

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

          Board Requirements

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 about16.4.15.12NMAC.

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