Opinion
January 9, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).
Whether the "videofluoroscope" or "visualizer" that petitioner seeks to use in his practice is a fluoroscope prohibited to chiropractors by the plain language of Education Law § 6551 (2) (a) is a technical question that should be left to the expertise of the agency responsible for administering the statute, provided its decision is not irrational or unreasonable ( see, Matter of New York State Assn. of Life Underwriters v New York State Banking Dept., 83 N.Y.2d 353, 360), clearly not the case here. As the IAS Court aptly advised petitioner, arguments based upon potential benefits resulting from allowing chiropractors to use videofluoroscopy should be addressed to the Legislature, not the courts ( see, Matter of RIHGA Intl. U.S.A. v New York State Liq. Auth., 84 N.Y.2d 876, 879).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.