Alvarez v. Department of Professional Regulation, Acupuncture

458 So. 2d 808, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2240, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15609
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 26, 1984
DocketNos. AV-100 to AV-105
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 So. 2d 808 (Alvarez v. Department of Professional Regulation, Acupuncture) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alvarez v. Department of Professional Regulation, Acupuncture, 458 So. 2d 808, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2240, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15609 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

BOOTH, Judge.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final order of the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) denying the appellants licenses to practice acupuncture1 in the State of Florida based upon their fail[809]*809ure to receive a passing score on the clinical practical portion of the August, 1982 Acupuncture Licensure Examination. The appellants contend, inter alia, that they were given insufficient notice and misleading instructions as to what was required on the clinical practical portion of the examination.

The August, 1982 Acupuncture Licen-sure Examination, the second such examination given in Florida, was divided into four parts:

Part I — state laws and rules relating to acupuncture, health, and safety requirements;
Part II — theory and practice of acupuncture;
Part III — diagnostic techniques and procedures and point/meridian selection; and
Part IV — Section 1: competency in the performance of needle insertion, manipulation, and removal;
Section 2: competency in patient care, sanitation, and antiseptic application.

All six appellants received passing scores for the first three parts. All six appellants failed Part IV, Section 1. Two appellants additionally failed Part IV, Section 2.

Part IV, Section 1 tested the following subject matter areas: (1) accuracy of location of acupuncture point; (2) length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation; (3) condition of needle — handle comes in contact with skin; and (4) needle manipulation and removal. Examinees received by mail the following instructions regarding the practical examination procedure:

For the final portion of your practical Acupuncture examination, you will be required to perform needle insertion, manipulation and removal on yourself for three (3) different Acupuncture points. Restrooms will be available to all candidates to prepare for his/her examination. Each candidate will be told by the examiner the point(s) on which needle insertion, manipulation and removal are to be performed. You will demonstrate for the two (2) examiners (i.e., a pair) how you will treat a patient in your clinic when performing needle insertion, manipulation and removal. You are not required to ask questions or narrate these procedures. You are required to demonstrate only the proper sterilization and sanitation procedures and proper needling techniques for the designated Acupuncture points....

The examinees were also mailed a bibliography of three books to study for Part II of the examination, “Theory and Practice of Acupuncture.”

At the examination, DPR directed the examiners to tell each examinee to tonify (or sedate)2 three different acupuncture points using the correct angle and needle manipulation. In order to receive a passing score for correct needle manipulation, the examinee had to demonstrate the technique of “twisting and twirling” or “lifting and thrusting.” A higher score for superi- or manipulation was awarded if the exami-nee demonstrated both techniques. An ex-aminee received a failing score if he did not demonstrate either of the two techniques. The two techniques are among several used for tonification and sedation. The examinee also received a failing score for the subject matter area of length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation if he did not use the technique of angled needle insertion.

The parties stipulated that appellee did not notify the appellants expressly in writing prior to the examination that they had to demonstrate one of the needle manipulation techniques known as “twisting/twirling” or “lifting/thrusting” in order to receive a score for correct manipulation, nor that they were required to insert the needle at an angle, either with or against the flow of energy along the meridian, in order to receive a score for correct angle.

The basic question presented as to Part IV, Section 1 was whether the instructions [810]*810given were so insufficient and misleading as to render that portion of the test invalid.

The hearing officer's recommended order contained the following findings of fact, which were adopted by the agency:

Respondent did not notify the petitioners expressly in writing prior to the examination that they were required to insert the needle at an angle, either with or against the flow of energy along the meridian, in order to receive a score for “correct angle” on the August, 1982, acupuncture licensure clinical practical examination.
Respondent did not notify Petitioners expressly in writing prior to the examination that they had to demonstrate one of the needle manipulation techniques known as “twisting and twirling” or “lifting and thrusting” in order to receive a score for “correct manipulation” on the August, 1982 acupuncture licen-sure clinical examination.
Respondent did not notify Petitioners by rule or otherwise that “needle manipulation” would be graded in two separate items on the grade sheet for each acupuncture point on the examination. Nor did Respondent notify Petitioners expressly in writing prior to the examination that they had to close the hole for tonification and leave the hole open for sedation in order to receive a score for “proper removal” of a needle on this examination.
Acupuncture is defined in the statutes and rules to mean “the insertion of needles into the human body, or the treatment of specific skin areas by means of mechanical, thermal, or the electrical stimulation, for the purpose of controlling and regulating the flow and balance of energy in the body.” There are numerous “schools” of acupuncture throughout the world where “masters” teach different techniques. However, all of these schools teach the traditional Chinese theory of acupuncture which is to balance the energy in the body by “toni-fying” those areas where there is insufficient energy and “sedating” those areas with too much energy. No evidence was presented that different acupuncture “points” are used at the differing schools of acupuncture or that proper results can be obtained if the needle is not inserted accurately on the point to be needled. These “points” are where needles are inserted and manipulated to increase or decrease the flow of energy on that meridian. The differences in these schools of acupuncture, including the western or scientific, consist mainly of techniques used to attain the desired end. Of these techniques, depth of needle insertion, angle of insertion, and how a needle is manipulated to stimulate the point are perhaps the most significant. (emphasis added)
Of the three texts referred to the applicants for study, two describe the traditional Chinese art of acupuncture, while the third, by Felix Mann, tests the Chinese art of acupuncture against western scientific bases to demonstrate the efficacy or lack thereof of some of these procedures.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Acupuncture
524 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
458 So. 2d 808, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2240, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-department-of-professional-regulation-acupuncture-fladistctapp-1984.