This is an appeal from an order granting appellees’ motion to strike appellant’s complaint.
Appellant instituted an action in trespass to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of a collision between the automobile she was operating and appellees’ vehicle. Medical expenses in the amount of $1,162.75 were alleged.
Appellees filed a motion to strike the complaint asserting that the appellant had failed to meet the $750 medical expense threshold of the “Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act”, 1974 July 19, P.L. 489, No. 176 Art. I et seq., 40 P.S. § 1009.101, as amended (herein the “Act”) in that $756.00 of appellant’s medical expense was as a result of chiropractic services.
The motion to strike was granted and this appeal followed.
We are presented with the question as to whether § 301(a)(5)(B) of the “Act” should be construed to include chiropractic expenses.
Section 301(a)(5)(B) provides as follows:
Article III—Tort Liability
(a) Partial abolition.—Tort liability is abolished with respect to any injury that takes place in this State in accordance with the provisions of this act if such injury arises out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, except that:
(5) A person remains liable for damages for non-economic detriment if the accident results in:
*587(B) the reasonable value of reasonable and necessary medical and dental services, including prosthetic devices and necessary ambulance, hospital and professional nursing expenses incurred in the diagnosis, care and recovery of the victim, exclusive of diagnostic x-ray costs and rehabilitation costs in excess of one hundred dollars ($100) is in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars (750). For purposes of this subclause, the reasonable value of hospital room and board shall be the amount determined by the Department of Health to be the average daily rate charged for a semi-private hospital room and board computed from such charges by all hospitals in the Commonwealth. (At 40 P.S. § 1009.-301).
We have previously affirmed two lower court decisions wherein they excluded chiropractic expenses from section B (above). Miller v. Johnson, 276 Pa.Super. 638, 424 A.2d 548 (1979); Babcock v. Tippett, 260 Pa.Super. 583, 394 A.2d 607 (1978) .
In determining the meaning of statutory language, our purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature. Commonwealth v. Driscoll, 485 Pa. 99, 401 A.2d 312 (1979).
In section 301(a)(5)(B), the Legislature enumerated two classes of expenses which can be sued for if in excess of $750.00, “medical and dental services”.
Clearly the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” would seem to apply here. The maxim essentially provides that where certain things are specifically designated, all omissions should be understood as exclusions. Commonwealth v. Charles, 270 Pa.Super. 280, 411 A.2d 527 (1979) . Thus here, where the statute specified two classes of expenses and “chiropractic” expenses were not included, logically one should conclude that the Legislature did not intend that chiropractic expenses be included in calculating the $750.00 threshold of the Act.
Indeed, our interpretation that the Legislature intended to exclude chiropractic expenses because they were not specifi*588cally enumerated in the Act, is supported when the history of the Act is examined.
Intense debate proceeded the enactment of the No-Fault Act. During the course of this, Senator Edward P. Zemprelli proposed an amendment that would have eliminated the term “dental” and replaced it with “dental, osteopathic, chiropractic, physical therapy and pharmaceutical,” 2190 Legislative Journal, Senate (July 11, 1974). However, this amendment was defeated. Thus it is an inescapable conclusion that the Legislature did not intend to include chiropractic expenses within this section of the Act.
Surely when one is seeking to determine whether a specific “term” should be construed to be within the language of a particular statute, no clearer indication of legislative intent exists than the specific rejection by the Legislature of an amendment which includes that particular “term”.
Appellant points to other statutes, i. e., Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of 1915, June 2, P.L. 736, 77 P.S. § 1, as amended, and the “Chiropractic Registration Act”, Act of 1951, Aug. 10, P.L. 1182 § 1, 63 P.S. § 601 et seq., as amended, whose definition of “chiropractic services” and “medical services” would seem to merit the inclusion of chiropractic expenses within § 301(a)(5)(B) of the “Act”.
However, we need look no further than the clearly demonstrated intention of the Legislature as expressed during the passage of the “Act”.
We resist the temptation to “judicially” legislate under the guise of statutory interpretation. Irrespective of our personal inclinations, our duty is to see that the Legislature’s intention is correctly implemented. This duty is best expressed by the ancient maxim, “Jus dicere et non jus dare” (to declare the law, not to make it).
Since the position of the appellant was specifically rejected by the Legislature, we see no course but to affirm.
SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion in which CER-CONE, President Judge, and BROSKY, J. join.