February 4, 1975
Dr. E. I. Shindler, President
South Dakota Board of Podiatry
Examiners
220 West 3rd
Yankton, South Dakota 57078
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 75-19
Interpretation of educational requirements of SDCL 36-8-8
Dear Dr. Shindler:
Please accept this in response to your request for an opinion interpreting the educational requirement of SDCL 36-8-8, relating to the qualifications of applicants for podiatry licensure in our state.
SDCL 36-8-8 reads as follows:
Qualifications of applicants for license. All applicants for license must have attained the age of eighteen years and be of good moral character, a graduate of some recognized school of podiatry, which for the purpose herein shall mean a school of podiatry requiring for graduation, the graduation from an accredited high school, credits granted for at least two full years of general college study in a college or university of recognized standing, and four full years of study in such school of podiatry. (Emphasis added)
You have noted that many of the podiatry schools have instituted an accelerated curriculum which enables its students to complete all courses and clinical requirements in the four-year curriculum during a period of three calendar years. Further, this program and course is in all respects equivalent to the four-year program and has been approved by the council of podiatry education. You indicate that the acceleration is made possible by continuing instruction through the summers or by otherwise accelerating the instructional program.
The South Dakota statute, SDCL 36-8-8, supra, states that an applicant for podiatry licensure must be a graduate of some recognized school of podiatry which requires for graduation, among other things, four full years of study in such school of podiatry.
Your question is:
May the board of podiatry accept applications from, and grant licenses to students who have completed the accelerated curriculum under the requirements of SDCL 36-8-8?
The Michigan Supreme Court considered a similar question construing that state's Optometry Act. 1909 P.A. 71, as amended: MCLA 338.251 et seq.; MSA 14.641 et seq. The Michigan optometric statute required that an applicant complete a minimum course of study of at least two years of six months each. In Coffman v. State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 331 Mich. 583, 588-589, 50 N.W. 2d 322 (1951), the court stated:
When the Legislature provided that an applicant shall be a graduate of an optometric school giving a course of at least two years of six months each, it did not intend a calendar year of 365 days, but that the school year should be at least six months devoted to the study of optometry. It is a well known fact that many students have accelerated the time required to complete a prescribed course by attending summer school and thus have been able to graduate before the usual time of graduation. (Emphasis added.)
The Michigan Attorney General's office on January 11, 1974, in interpreting a podiatry statutory question similar to the one which you have presented our office, issued an opinion to the state board of registration in podiatry and stated that:
Likewise, in requiring a minimum of four years' day study of nine months each (under the Michigan podiatry statutes), the Legislature did not intend that the year's work be equated with the 365 day calendar year. Podiatry students may accelerate their education and still meet the requirements of the Michigan podiatry statutes. (Emphasis added.)
In reviewing the intent and purpose of our South Dakota statute, it is my opinion that the phrase "four full years of study" as it appears in the South Dakota podiatry statute, SDCL 36-8-8, supra, was not intended to mean four full calendar years, but rather, the basic four year curriculum. Further, it is my opinion that a graduate of a recognized school of podiatry who otherwise meets the requirements for licensure is a qualified applicant for licensure by your board.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW
ATTORNEY GENERAL
WJJ:DOC:rw
