A Battle for Animal Chiropractic: Dr. Laura Colman's Fight for Fairness
In a pivotal lawsuit that could have significant implications for alternative animal healthcare, Dr. Laura Colman, a certified animal chiropractor, is challenging the Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners over restrictive licensing regulations. This case, filed in the Chancery Court of Montgomery County, Tennessee, centers around Dr. Colman’s right to provide chiropractic care to animals without having to obtain an expensive and time-consuming veterinary license, which she argues is unnecessary and burdensome given her specialized qualifications. Let's dive into what this lawsuit means for animal chiropractic, animal owners, and the broader fight for occupational freedom.
CLICK HERE for a copy of the lawsuit
Background
Dr. Laura Colman is a licensed chiropractor who has completed rigorous training in animal chiropractic. She holds a certificate from the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association (AVCA), the recognized standard for animal chiropractic care. Despite her qualifications, Tennessee’s regulations require Dr. Colman to obtain a veterinary license—a process that would take four years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars—simply to continue practicing animal chiropractic. Importantly, veterinary schools in Tennessee do not even include animal chiropractic as part of their curriculum, making this requirement particularly irrational.
The lawsuit claims that the Tennessee Veterinary Practice Act and the Board's regulations, which classify animal chiropractic as veterinary medicine, are both arbitrary and unduly restrictive. Dr. Colman’s argument hinges on the principle that her training as an animal chiropractor surpasses what veterinary students receive in this area, yet she is being prevented from using her expertise to help animals in need.
The Legal Challenge
Dr. Colman is seeking both injunctive and declaratory relief against the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and its members. Her legal arguments are grounded in two key areas: the right to earn a living free from unreasonable government interference, as protected under the Tennessee Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
According to the complaint, the Board’s regulations violate Dr. Colman’s right to earn an honest living by imposing irrational barriers on animal chiropractors who are not veterinarians. Dr. Colman argues that requiring a veterinary license for someone with extensive specialized training in chiropractic, but not in general veterinary medicine, lacks any rational connection to protecting animal welfare. Instead, these regulations effectively serve to protect veterinarians from competition rather than to ensure quality care for animals.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the Board has overstepped its statutory authority. The Tennessee Veterinary Practice Act grants the Board the authority to regulate veterinary medicine, but Dr. Colman’s case asserts that the Board’s power does not extend to regulating alternative animal therapies such as chiropractic, which falls outside the scope of veterinary surgery, obstetrics, or other defined branches of veterinary medicine.
Active Market Players and Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Colman is suing the individual board members in their official capacities as agents responsible for enforcing the regulations pertaining to veterinary medicine. The voting members of the board are all licensed veterinarians except for one consumer member: Leslie Wereszczak (Board Chair), Montgomery McInturff (Vice Chair), Cathryn Youmans (Secretary), Angela Zinkus, Mark Garrett, Sarah Spidel, and Marissa Lee. Dr. Colman is suing them individually as board members because they are active market players in direct competition with her. This presents an inherent conflict of interest, as the same veterinarians who stand to benefit economically from limiting the practice of animal chiropractic are the ones enforcing the regulations that restrict it.
This type of situation raises serious concerns about restraint of trade. When regulatory boards are composed of active participants in the market they regulate, there is an increased risk that their decisions may be influenced by the desire to limit competition rather than to protect public welfare. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (2015), ruling that state regulatory boards made up of active market participants must be subject to active supervision by the state to avoid antitrust violations. Without such oversight, these boards may act in ways that unlawfully restrain trade and protect their own economic interests at the expense of consumers and qualified professionals.
In Dr. Colman’s case, the lack of active supervision over the Board’s actions could mean that the regulations are not being implemented with the public’s best interest in mind. Instead, the regulations appear to serve as a mechanism for veterinarians to maintain a monopoly over animal healthcare services, preventing qualified animal chiropractors from offering their specialized services. This not only limits competition but also restricts access to care for animals that could benefit from chiropractic treatments.
Impact on Animal Chiropractic and Animal Owners
This case sheds light on the pressing issue of occupational freedom and access to specialized healthcare for animals. Currently, there are only about twenty certified animal chiropractors in Tennessee, with most of them being chiropractors rather than veterinarians. By enforcing these restrictive regulations, the Board is significantly limiting the availability of animal chiropractic care, which is in high demand for both pets and farm animals.
Dr. Colman’s complaint notes that only a small number of the existing animal chiropractors in Tennessee are also veterinarians, and requiring these professionals to obtain veterinary degrees would likely result in an even greater shortage of animal chiropractors in the state. This shortage could deprive many animals of the benefits of chiropractic care, such as improved nervous system function, reduced pain, and enhanced overall well-being.
For animal owners, the outcome of this lawsuit could directly affect their ability to seek out qualified chiropractic care for their pets without needing a veterinarian. Many pet owners see animal chiropractic as an important drug-free option that complements traditional veterinary care, particularly for issues related to the musculoskeletal system.
A Broader Battle for Occupational Freedom
The lawsuit also highlights a broader struggle faced by many professionals in niche fields. Across various industries, regulatory boards often create unnecessary and arbitrary barriers that prevent qualified professionals from practicing their trade. Dr. Colman’s fight is emblematic of a growing movement against such occupational licensing requirements that serve to reduce competition rather than protect the public.
Animal chiropractic is a distinct practice that has its own certification standards, and the training provided to veterinarians does not prepare them to offer the same quality of chiropractic care that certified animal chiropractors can provide. The requirements imposed by the Tennessee Board, according to Dr. Colman, reflect a system designed more to benefit veterinarians economically rather than to promote the welfare of animals.
Conclusion
The outcome of this lawsuit could be a turning point not just for animal chiropractic in Tennessee, but also for the recognition of alternative animal healthcare across the country. Dr. Laura Colman’s fight against what she views as unjust, irrational, and burdensome regulations is ultimately a fight for the right to practice her profession and provide valuable care for animals in Tennessee. If successful, this case may set a precedent for loosening unjust regulations in other states, making it easier for qualified animal healthcare professionals to help animals without undue interference.
As the case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how Tennessee courts balance the interests of occupational freedom with regulatory oversight, and whether this case can serve as a catalyst for broader change in the landscape of animal healthcare.
