Legal Action

The Death of the CCE Cartel

By Frank M. Painter|February 20, 2012|Expanded Practice, Legal Action, News|

The Death of the CCE Cartel

SOURCE: Dynamic Chiropractic ~ February 12, 2012

By James Edwards, DC

After several organizations [1] testified in favor of the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) being renewed as the accrediting agency for chiropractic colleges, some of those organizations issued less-than-accurate communications implying that the CCE was victorious in its effort. The fact is that nothing could be further from the truth.

It is not my intention to identify the organizations that misinterpreted and/or misrepresented what occurred. For those organizations that attempted to “spin” the facts in order to place the CCE in the most favorable light, I will leave it to them to correct the record. Instead, I will rely solely on transcripts and the reporting of the objective and highly prestigious Chronicle of Higher Education, and let you make your own judgments. After your review, I think it will become obvious that in a word, the CCE got publicly “spanked” for blatantly and steadfastly ignoring the wishes of the majority of the chiropractic profession.

While using the word cartel might seem harsh, it is important to stress that the description of the CCE as being a “virtual cartel” did not originate from me or even from within the chiropractic profession itself. It actually arose during a previous hearing by a member of the United States Department of Education (DOE) National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). For your reading pleasure, the committee member’s harsh comments are below [with emphasis added]:

“Madam Chair, we’ve heard charges and countercharges from I trust a wide, fairly wide spectrum of the chiropractic profession. At least that’s the way it seems to me. Battles over turf, battles over philosophy, maybe battles over personal ambition, but divisions of every kind.

And some of this, maybe most of it, is a consequence of, at least as I see it, a monopoly control of a profession which has led to the establishment of a virtual cartel, not unusual. There are several other professions that we deal with that have a virtual cartel control of the profession. We can’t change that, but we can consider measures that will try to send a message to the prevailing control group that they should try to be more inclusive rather than less inclusive and I suggest that we try to figure out what is within our range of alternatives to do that.

Because I believe if we simply hear it, discuss it, anguish over it, and then give them five years of recognition, that we haven’t been the impetus for any corrective action for the profession and I worry about the profession.” [2]

Harsh Words

And now to the objective reporting of the highly prestigious Chronicle of Higher Education. Sit down, fasten your seatbelts and read what this impeccable, trusted source reported [again with emphasis added]: (more…)

1

TMA v TBCE–TRIAL UPDATE.

By John Wiens DC|July 21, 2010|Legal Action|

Source Texas Chiropractic Association

This situation was reported on in a previous article.

August 16th Trial Date POSTPONED

On Wednesday, July 7, 2010, two matters were heard in the TMA v. TBCE lawsuit…

In the first matter, the TMA and the TMB questioned the TCA’s “standing” to be a party in the suit – they claimed Doctors of Chiropractic have no legal interest in the position taken by the Texas Medical Board under its act about what constitutes the unauthorized practice of medicine. TCA responded with legal argument and testimony on all the reasons why Doctors of Chiropractic would be significantly affected by the outcome in this lawsuit, including being threatened with criminal action, civil action, TBCE discipline, and potentially being shut down if diagnosis is ruled to be exclusive to medical doctors. TCA presented testimony on all of the ways in which the profession and the public would be harmed by the position being taken by the TMA and TMB. The TMA and TMB backed off from any claim that TCA cannot defend the TBCE scope of practice rule. The Judge has yet to rule on the TCA’s standing to challenge the Texas Medical Board’s statute.

The second motion was the TMA’s and TMB’s motion to strike TCA’s request for a jury trial. After extensive argument, the Judge directed the parties to submit questions of law regarding diagnosis to him in a process of cross-briefing that will not be complete for a month. The Judge indicated that, once all the legal questions are resolved, if a disputed question of fact remains, he would not deprive TCA of a jury trial. He did not expressly rule on the motion to strike.

TBCE and TCA attorneys, including appellate attorney former Texas Supreme Court Justice Tom Phillips, felt that the proceeding was productive and not unfavorable.

1

A Constitutional Challenge to DCs Diagnosing – What This Means for Health Care

By John Wiens DC|April 27, 2010|Legal Action|

A Constitutional Challenge to DCs Diagnosing –
What This Means for Health Care

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: ProviderLaw.Com

By Keith Pendleton, JD

I. The Lawsuit in Texas

In January, 2006, the American Medical Association (AMA) announced an industry consortium known as the “Scope of Practice Partnership” (SOPP).

The consortium was originally formed by the AMA, along with 6 national medical specialty societies and 6 state medical associations, including the Texas Medical Association (TMA).

As part of its formation, the original members of SOPP agreed that they needed to begin reigning in the scope of practices of various professions, the chiropractic profession included.

Specifically, SOPP members agreed that it was “necessary to concentrate the resources of organized medicine to oppose scope of practice expansions by allied health professionals that threaten the health and safety of the public … through a wide-range of efforts, including … judicial advocacy….” (emphasis added).

“Organized medicine?” Are we talking about a nationwide campaign here?

“Threaten the health and safety of the public?” Is this really what this is about?

As part of the announcement, organized medicine resolved to challenge the scope of practice of various health care professions in a comprehensive, nationwide, consistent manner, including through use of the courts.
(more…)

17

Court finds chiropractic negligence in manipulation

By John Wiens DC|January 21, 2010|Legal Action|

Source Tom Blackwell, National Post

A new court ruling has again called into question a widely used but controversial chiropractic treatment, concluding that a Newfoundland practitioner made a patient deaf in one ear and caused other debilitating injuries by performing a neck manipulation on him.

The judge in the civil suit found the chiropractor negligent and will decide later what compensation to award Abe Gallant, who says he had to leave his $80,000-a-year job because of the damage.

The decision follows a series of public inquiries and inquests that have blamed cervical manipulation for strokes, some of them fatal, and the filing of a $500-million class action suit in Alberta that targeted the allegedly dangerous chiropractic therapy. (more…)

5

Who Are The QuackWatchers?

By Frank M. Painter|August 9, 2009|Education, Legal Action, News|

Who Are The QuackWatchers?

The Chiro.Org Blog

For those who have forgotten, or for those who never knew, organized medicine spent decades and millions of dollars trying to discredit and destroy chiropractic. Today the vestiges of this suppression are still found on fringe web sites that ignore the body of peer-reviewed research supporting chiropractic care.

You may also explore the depths of medical arrogance in this in-depth review of the Wilk case.

10

Class Action Suit Filed in NJ US District Court

By stevev|August 1, 2009|Legal Action, Legal Issues, Media|

A class action suit was filed July 29, 2009 in U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey by Buttaci & Leardi, LLC and the renowned class action law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP. These firms have been retained by the Association of New Jersey Chiropractors (ANJC) on behalf of it’s membership, chiropractors and other health care providers. The suit alleges that Aetna’s post-payment audit process is violative of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (‘ERISA’). It further alleges that Aetna’s post-payment audit process and its pre-payment claim review process violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (‘RICO’) and calls into question the retroactive application of Aetna’s clinical policy bulletins in order to deny provided services previously paid under their claims. These clinical policy bulletins are being used as the basis for demanding refunds of payments for services rendered, and previously determined as payable, as experimental and/or unproven to be clinically effective.

Further information about the suit (case # 3:09-CV-03761-JAP-TJB) can be found through the following links;

5