Texas Orthopaedic Association v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners

What is "foot"? A term in search of a lawerly definition
Texas Orthopaedic Ass'n vs. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners, No. (Tex.App.- Austin, Mar, 14, 2008)( ((reversed and remanded) (Before Justices Puryear, Waldrop and Smith)
Texas Orthopaedic Association, Texas Medical Association and Andrew M. Kant, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners; Texas Podiatric Medical Association; and Bruce A. Scudday, D.P.M.--Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County

O P I N I O N

Various statutes over the years have described the practice of podiatry as the treatment of the foot, but the term "foot" has never been statutorily defined. See, e.g., Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 202.001(a)(4) (West 2004). In 2001, the Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners (the "Board") promulgated a rule defining the word "foot." See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 202.151 (West 2004) (authorizing Board to adopt rules governing practice of podiatry); 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 375.1(2) (2007) (defining foot) (the "Rule"). The Rule included in its definition, among other things, portions of what in layman's terms is called the ankle. In response, the Texas Orthopaedic Association, the Texas Medical Association, and Andrew M. Kant, M.D. ("appellants") sought a declaration that the Rule impermissibly expanded the scope of podiatry. The district court concluded that the Rule was valid and did not exceed the Board's authority. The appellants appeal the judgment of the district court. We will reverse the district court's judgment.