Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Chiropractic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board opposes SB 687 allowing uncertified chiropractors to perform animal chiropractic without veterinary supervision
Summary
The board voted to oppose Senate Bill 687, which would permit doctors of chiropractic with certain certifications to perform animal chiropractic without direct veterinary supervision; staff and multiple speakers warned the chiropractic board lacks animal‑health expertise to regulate those services.
The California Veterinary Medical Board voted to oppose Senate Bill 687 after hearing staff analysis and public comment.
SB 687 would modify the chiropractic scope of practice to permit doctors of chiropractic (DCs) who possess a valid certification from the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association (AVCA/ABCA referenced) or the International Veterinary Chiropractic Association (IVCA) to deliver animal chiropractic services without direct veterinarian supervision. Chiropractors without such certification could continue to practice animal chiropractic under direct veterinary supervision.
Board staff flagged drafting issues including the board’s name (the bill refers to the “veterinary medical board” rather than the California Veterinary Medical Board), and concerns that the chiropractic board would be empowered to adopt and enforce regulations for animal chiropractic while lacking veterinary and zoonotic disease expertise. Staff recommended requesting clarifying amendments and authorized the executive committee to work with the author’s office to resolve concerns; some board members instead moved to oppose the bill outright.
Public commenters included chiropractors and chiropractic associations advocating for regulated direct access for certified practitioners and citing other states with similar laws; veterinarians and the CVMA urged opposition, citing lack of animal‑health training among chiropractic regulators and potential consumer and animal safety risks. Several veterinarians also described cases in which non‑chiropractor providers caused patient harm.
After public comment, the board voted to oppose SB 687. The board’s recorded roll call showed unanimity among members present. Staff will transmit the board’s concerns to the author and legislative staff and request clarifying amendments if appropriate.
Ending: The board opposed SB 687 and will follow up with the author’s office regarding wording errors and the board’s request for regulatory and oversight protections.
