Com. v. Zimmerman

• Decision Date: 21 May 1915
• Citation: 221 Mass. 184,108 N.E. 893
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. ZIMMERMAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

221 Mass. 184

108 N.E. 893

COMMONWEALTH v. ZIMMERMAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 21, 1915

COUNSEL

Sol. L. Long, of Kansas City, Mo., and Nathan Sternseher, of Providence, R. I., for defendant.

Joseph C. Pelletier, Dist. Atty., and Thomas D. Lavelle and A. C Webber, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Boston, for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

The defendant has been found guilty of violation of R. L. c. 76 § 8, in that he practiced medicine without being lawfully authorized. He defends on the ground that he is a chiropractor, and that his acts do not constitute a violation of the statute. The evidence tended to show that he kept an office in Boston, indicated by a sign on which was his name followed by the word 'chiropractor'; that he practiced for pay; that he said that the basis of chiropractic is the adjustment of the vertebrae of the spine that the vertebrae when not in their normal positions press upon the nerves at the spine; that the malposition of these vertebrae was the cause of abnormality and that an adjustment of these vertebrae to their normal positions would remove the pressure at the spine; that he said that he did not cure, that he simply adjusted. He testified that:

'Chiropractic is the specific science that removes pressure upon the nerves by adjustment of spinal vertebrae; there are no instruments used; it is done by the hand only.'

The treatment pursued by the defendant was to have those who resorted to him go into an inner room and remove their outer garments until they were stripped to the waist. The patient then took a sitting position. The defendant examined down the spine, beginning at the top, by feeling with his fingers to see whether each vertebra was in its proper position. The method to discover whether a vertebra was out of position was by making a gliding move of the three middle fingers of the right hand, which constituted the process of 'palpation' whereby one vertebra was compared with another. As a result of this 'analysis' the defendant was able to tell whether vertebrae were out of alignment or out of their normal positions. In making 'adjustments,' the patient was placed on a low table with face downward and the vertabra which was out of condition was given a quick thrust or push by the hands of the defendant. The acts performed by the defendant constitute, first, an examination of the vertebrae of the spinal column and a determination whether they are in a normal or in an unnatural position; and, second, a manipulation of such of the vertebrae as are found to be out of position, so that they will become regular and correct with reference to each other. Although the defendant did not prescribe medicine, and testified that he paid no attention to the patient's description of symptoms or disease, yet it is obvious that his purpose was to treat the human body in order to make natural that which he found abnormal in the narrow field of his examination. The removal of pressure upon nerves is a means of relieving the ills flowing from that source. 'Chiropractic' is defined as:

'A system of healing that treats disease by manipulation of the spinal column.' Webster's International Dict.

The plaintiff's manipulation was of a most important part of the body and related to a nerve center. It might have been found that it could have no other aim than a prevention of disease or relief from existing disarrangement of body functions. That which the defendant did and its manifest purpose might have been found to be practicing medicine within the meaning of the statute. Medicine relates to the prevention, cure and alleviation of disease, the repair of injury, or treatment of abnormal or unusual states of the body and their restoration to a healthful condition. It includes a broad field. It is not confined to the administering of medicinal substances or the use of surgical or other instruments. It comprehends 'a knowledge not only of the functions of the various organs of the human body, but also the diseases to which these organs are subject, and the laws of health and the modes of living which tend to avert or overcome disease as well as the specific methods of treatment that are most effective in promoting cures.' Knowlton, C.J., in Commonwealth v. Jewelle, 199 Mass. 558, 560, 85 N.E. 858. In order to practice medicine one need not cover the entire field of the science. If he devotes himself to a very restricted part of it, he still may be found to practice medicine. It is matter of common knowledge that there has been great specialization in that profession in recent years. To that effect are the decisions. Commonwealth v. Porn, 196 Mass. 326, 82 N.E. 31, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 94, 13 Ann. Cas. 569; People v. Gordon, 194 Ill. 560, 62 N.E. 858, 88 Am. St. Rep. 165; Witty v. State, 173 Ind. 404, 90 N.E. 627, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1297; People v. Allcutt, 117 A.D. 546, 102, N.Y.S. 678, affirmed in 189 N.Y. 517, 81 N.E. 1171.

It is of no consequence that the defendant abstained from the use of the words 'diagnosis,' 'treatment,' or 'disease' in description of what he did, and employed the terms 'analysis,' 'palpation,' and 'adjustment.' The acts which he did and their manifest design are to be examined rather than the words used, in order to ascertain the true...