Court boots out Podiatrist's definition of the 'foot'

NewsBot · Mar 14, 2008

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Press Release from Texas Medical Association:
Judges Boot Podiatrists' Foot Definition

An Austin appeals court sided with TMA and the Texas Orthopaedic Association (TOA) and said the Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners was wrong when it adopted a rule that expanded the definition of the foot to include the bones in the ankle.

"We conclude that the board exceeded its authority when it promulgated the rule and that the rule is invalid," the judges on the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, said in upholding medicine's appeal of a lower court ruling. The judges sent the case back to an Austin state district court that had ruled in favor of the podiatrists.

TMA President William W. Hinchey, MD, said he is pleased with the ruling and that TMA will continue to defend the practice of medicine. "This is a ruling for patient safety and for appropriateness of care. I'm glad the appeals court recognizes that the proper medical care of patients is too important to be left to people who are not adequately trained to perform certain procedures," he said.

The legal battle began in 2000 when the podiatry board defined the foot as "the tibia and fibula in their articulation with the talus, and all bones to the toes, inclusive of all soft tissues (muscles, nerves, vascular structures, tendons, ligaments and any other anatomical structures) that insert into the tibia and fibula in their articulation with the talus and all bones to the toes."

TMA and TOA objected. So did then-Attorney General John Cornyn when he issued an opinion that said the podiatry board acted outside its authority. He added that only the Texas Legislature, not an unelected administrative board, can establish or change the scope of practice for podiatrists, physicians, or any other health care practitioners.

In August 2005, an Austin district judge issued an order in favor of the podiatrists. TMA and TOA appealed.

"Although there was extensive testimony and evidence presented during trial showing that treating the ankle was within the scope of podiatry, no evidence was introduced showing that treating structures found within the leg were within the scope of podiatry," the appeals court said in its March 14 decision.

The court also held that the "rule authorizes podiatrists to treat parts of the body outside the traditional scope of podiatry without satisfying the requirements of the Medical Practice Act. This authorization exceeds the limited exemption given to podiatrists and would constitute the unauthorized practice of medicine."

TMA expects the podiatry board and podiatry association to ask for a rehearing and, if unsuccessful, appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Admin2 · Mar 14, 2008

Re: Court boots out Podiatrist's defnition of the 'foot'

Related:
Court: Foot bone is connected to the anklebone

Dieter Fellner · Mar 15, 2008

Texas Podiatry:

Keep up the battle ! A cowardly victory propelled by professional boundary / money disputes but disguised as altruism.

What a patronizing diatribe. :bang: Need to get better lawyers next time round, perhaps?

LuckyLisfranc · Mar 15, 2008

Dietner,

Well said. A win by the medical profession in this legal diatribe could potentially, heaven forbid, set a precedent around the US, and the Western world.

All podiatrists worldwide should keep an eye on this drawn out situation.

LL

Cameron · Mar 15, 2008

netizens

Prior the UK joining the EC, the Treaty of Rome required, in the interests of, movement of labour that all occupations (professions and trades) were defined. In the case of podiatry/chiropody this necessitated a common definition of the foot. As I understood the definition for the EC was 'everything under the maleoli' (but not the ankle). In some state laws governing podiatry in Australia there was (the Laws have recently changed or are in the process) reference to the role of the podiatrist and what they can treat. This could include above the ankle provided the aim was by doing so, a foot pathology would benefit. It remains a grey area but TTBOMK this has never been contested.

What say you?

toeslayer

Dieter Fellner · Mar 16, 2008

toeslayer said: ↑

netizens

Prior the UK joining the EC, the Treaty of Rome required, in the interests of, movement of labour that all occupations (professions and trades) were defined. In the case of podiatry/chiropody this necessitated a common definition of the foot. As I understood the definition for the EC was 'everything under the maleoli' (but not the ankle). In some state laws governing podiatry in Australia there was (the Laws have recently changed or are in the process) reference to the role of the podiatrist and what they can treat. This could include above the ankle provided the aim was by doing so, a foot pathology would benefit. It remains a grey area but TTBOMK this has never been contested.

What say you?

toeslayer
Click to expand...

To my best knowledge Podiatry (UK) can legally treat the foot and ankle and this will include structures originating more proximal but with insertion into to the foot. e.g. tibialis posterior, anterior etc. Peaking a quick glance at SOCAP website there is clear reference to the treatment of the Foot & Ankle. I do not know of any additional specific directives, legal or other, to prohibit ankle work, if there is a clinical need? Perhaps another, with a firm grasp of podiatry - legal issues, and experience of surgical ankle work can clarify this.

In my neck of the woods, a rural and agricultural expanse, I have discovered little clinical need, that I know of. Perhaps a blessing. I also have in mind the advice of an experienced foot & ankle surgeon who, in a lecture about fixation problems with a specific reference to ankle arthrodesis, recommended to the audience, the smartest action to take, from the get go, is to abstain; instead refer this patient to your best friend ! I am glad he is not my drinking buddy .... :drinks

Admin2 · Mar 17, 2008

The full text of the courts decision is here:
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=16620

Cameron · Mar 19, 2008

netizens

This story does not want to go away......

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5633187.html

toeslayer

summer · Apr 13, 2008

The president of the Texas Medical Association is also a pathologist for Ameripath which does many of the tissue studies for Podiatrists in the U.S.

Any U.S podiatrist still want to use them?

Cameron · Apr 28, 2008

netizens

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/05/05/prsc0505.htm

A Texas appeals court ruled the state's podiatric board overstepped its authority by redefining podiatrists' practice scope beyond the foot to include the ankle and leg………. the podiatric association plans to ask the appeals court for a rehearing.

toeslayer

Court boots out Podiatrist's definition of the 'foot'

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

LuckyLisfranc Well-Known Member

Cameron Well-Known Member

Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

Cameron Well-Known Member

summer Active Member

Cameron Well-Known Member

Patient takes podiatric physician to court over deep vein thrombosis

Courts issue injunction to stop dry needling by some in California

Court rules Medi-Cal must cover podiatrists

Do hard courts shorten pro tennis players careers?

Supreme Court rejects podiatrists' claims of discrimination in reimbursements

Need Help Taking a Podiatrist to Court?

Testifying in Court

Share This Page

Court boots out Podiatrist's definition of the 'foot'

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

LuckyLisfranc Well-Known Member

Cameron Well-Known Member

Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

Cameron Well-Known Member

summer Active Member

Cameron Well-Known Member

Patient takes podiatric physician to court over deep vein thrombosis

Courts issue injunction to stop dry needling by some in California

Court rules Medi-Cal must cover podiatrists

Do hard courts shorten pro tennis players careers?

Supreme Court rejects podiatrists' claims of discrimination in reimbursements

Need Help Taking a Podiatrist to Court?

Testifying in Court

Share This Page

Useful Searches