FROM:                Bureau of Occupational Licenses 

                SUBJECT:          Complaint Investigation Report 

FY 2005: To date, one (1) complaint has been received and is under investigation.

FY 2004: Twenty-two (22) complaints were received. Of those, twelve (12) remain under investigation or pro-review; and three (3) await Board determination.   

There are currently five (5) formal action files under legal review or awaiting administrative action.

CHI-P4B-1-2004-8        C alleged R was deceptive, malicious, and did not use appropriate treatment, resulting in more pain and discomfort. C alleged R was milking the system, treating other areas of the spine rather than the specific area of initial complaint. C failed to respond to INV's requests for a release & additional information. R advised INV that C did not follow treatment instructions because C did not agree with R's diagnosis of lumbar sciatic radiculopathy. R stated that C never complained of any discomfort during treatment, and denied treating or causing damage to C's spine. INV revealed that R did receive an overpayment from C's insurance, and a refund was made upon notice. INV did not reveal evidence to support the allegations or a violation.
IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.

CHI-P2B-3-2004-11        C alleges that R attempted to persuade C into a costly monthly payment plan for treatment; that R had C's wife replace clothing with a robe, but did not ask C to do the same; & that R is practicing on expired license and using an "activator" without proper training. INV revealed that R requires, per policy, that all patients use a robe so as to appropriately allow necessary treatment. R admitted to not having specific training in the activator, however, it was confirmed that all use was under the guidance of another licensee (business co-owner). As for the allegation of practicing without benefit of licensure, the record was checked and the license was current. No evidence was revealed to support the allegations or prove violations of laws or rules. DAG evaluated file and determined that there was no evidence to support inappropriate behavior or other violations of law or rule. IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.

CHI-P3C-2-2004-18        C alleged R was used inappropriate and unnecessary treatment for sexual gratification. INV revealed that, though R is also licensed as an ACU, R was providing CHI treatment to C. C complained that R stretched a muscle in C's groin by reaching beneath pants and underwear, and that R asked to see C's scars from a Cesarean section and appendectomy. C said that no one else was in the exam room, and that the treatment and viewing of C's scars was sexually motivated and not medically necessary. R advised the INV that there was evidently some misconception and confusion on the part of C. R stated that C did not voice any concern during the visit. R admitted to apparent poor communication with C. R noted that scar tissue is inelastic and can cause adhesions that contribute to stiffness and inhibited range of movement, and presented documentation supporting those statements and the PSOAS stretch. An interview with R's assistant revealed that R frequently examines scars and treats scar tissue, and that R is seldom alone with patients. The assistant also noted that C had admitted to never having chiropractic treatment prior to the visits with the R. INV did not reveal evidence to support the allegations or a violation. 
IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.

Last Modified - February 14, 2006