State laws preventing chiropractors from contacting victims immediately after car accidents have been deemed unconstitutional by the Eighth District Court of Appeals. The court struck down two 2019 laws aimed at curbing solicitations by healthcare professionals using phone numbers from police reports. A group of northeast Ohio chiropractors had filed a lawsuit to block these laws.
The court's decision on May 23, 2024, upheld previous rulings that stopped the enforcement of these laws. The appeals court found that the lawmakers violated Ohio’s "one-subject" rule by including these provisions in the state's budget bill for 2020-2021. Judge Frank D. Celebrezze III noted that similar standalone bills had failed in the legislature and were inserted into the budget bill during late legislative processes.
During budget deliberations, legislators amended public records law to exclude accident victim phone numbers and added a new section prohibiting chiropractors from contacting victims until 30 days post-incident, allowing only mail solicitations afterward. Violators faced fines enforced by the Ohio attorney general.
Chiropractors argued their business relied on quick contact with potential clients using information from police reports. They secured a preliminary injunction against R.C. 1349.05 in July 2020, which was later amended to reduce contact time to within 24 hours but restricted to one call or message.
The state argued amendments resolved constitutional concerns and sought dismissal of the lawsuit. However, chiropractors contended all amendments were invalid due to initial unconstitutional passage.
In June 2022, a common pleas court ruled in favor of chiropractors, declaring both laws unenforceable—a decision upheld by the Eighth District upon appeal. The appeals court considered whether amendments cured issues or if original challenges remained valid.
The Eighth District emphasized Ohio Constitution’s one-subject rule requiring clear expression in bill titles and noted difficulty applying this rule to appropriations bills involving state expenditures versus revenues.
The chiropractors maintained solicitation laws unrelated to state spending were improperly added after failing separately in legislation. Judge Celebrezze highlighted that adding unsuccessful provisions into budget bills could circumvent formal legislative processes.
Ultimately, the Eighth District concluded that violations of the one-subject rule rendered both original and amended solicitation laws void.
___