## Facts

- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-50 defined podiatry as the “diagnosis, prevention and treatment of foot ailments,” and authorized surgery “upon the feet” under specified conditions.
- In 1984, a Medicare intermediary concluded that podiatrists were “physicians” for Medicare purposes only within the limits of state law and that ankle-related services were not reimbursable in Connecticut because podiatry was limited to foot ailments.
- The Connecticut Board of Examiners in Podiatry sought guidance on whether treating certain ankle conditions fell within § 20-50’s scope.
- In a declaratory ruling, the Board interpreted § 20-50 to include treatment of certain ankle ailments, reasoning that “the ankle is part of the foot and the foot is part of the ankle.”
- The Connecticut State Medical Society and a physician appealed, arguing the Board’s interpretation unlawfully expanded podiatrists’ statutory scope of practice.
- The Superior Court sustained the appeal, applying ordinary meaning and dictionary definitions to conclude that “foot” does not include the ankle.
- The Board and aligned podiatrists appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a reviewing court must give special deference to the Board’s interpretation of § 20-50 in a declaratory ruling addressing the scope of podiatry.
2. Whether the term “foot” in § 20-50 includes the ankle, permitting podiatrists to treat specified ankle ailments within the statutory definition of podiatry.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment sustaining the administrative appeal and rejecting the Board’s declaratory ruling.
- The Court held that the trial court applied the correct standard of review and was not required to give special deference to the Board’s construction of § 20-50.
- The Court held that “foot” has a common, well-accepted meaning that does not include the ankle.
- Because the statute limited podiatry to foot ailments and surgery upon the feet, the Board’s interpretation expanding practice to ankle treatment was erroneous as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review is not required to defer to an agency’s statutory interpretation where the question is a pure issue of law, especially on an issue of first impression without a long-standing agency construction.
- Statutory terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning unless the legislature clearly indicates a different usage.
- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-50 (as then in effect), “foot” excludes the ankle; an administrative board may not expand a licensed profession’s statutory scope of practice by recharacterizing anatomy contrary to the statute’s ordinary meaning.
- Material expansions of professional practice authority are for the legislature, not administrative interpretation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the invalidation of the Board’s declaratory ruling, holding that § 20-50 confines podiatry to foot ailments because “foot” does not include the ankle and concluding that no special deference was owed to the Board’s first-impression statutory interpretation.


Conn. State Med. Soc’y v. Conn. Bd. of Exam’rs in Podiatry, 208 Conn. 709, 546 A.2d 830 (Conn. 1988)