AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

[Guest guest]

Yes doctor the AMA is running scared and

will in fact retract the current language in the current 6th edition

the legal dept of the ACA simply referred to the Wilk anti-trust case and the

settlement agreement by the AMA and other related groups…one could hear

their collective anal sphincters tighten from Albany, Oregon!

BTW it was our lead instructor Dr. Warren Jahn that alerted the ACA initially.

Vern Saboe, DC, DACAN,

FICC, DABFP, FACO

Lobbyist

Chiropractic Association of Oregon

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of sjerry.rm

Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:41

AM

Subject: AMA

Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

Let's see how often this will come up later, though

the " Letter " has

been issued.

G. Smalling, D.C.

" AMA Limits DC Impairment to Spine Only "

After receiving a strongly worded letter from American Chiropractic

Association (ACA) legal counsel, the American Medical Association

(AMA) has announced that it will take " immediate and visible steps to

counteract any potential confusion " regarding language in its Guides

to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition that

restricted chiropractic impairment evaluations to the spine only.

Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a section

titled " Fundamental Principles of the Guides, " states: " A

licensed

physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic doctors,

if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority to perform

ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the spine. " Upon

learning of this language, ACA general counsel R. Daly sent a

letter to the AMA on Feb. 7 that stated, in part:

" In our view, the action of the AMA in issuing this standard

unlawfully restricts competition and excludes a competitive rival,

i.e., doctors of chiropractic from the provision of impairment

ratings. We note that neither the ACA, nor any other major

chiropractic group, was approached or provided input in the standard

setting process that established this new restriction. "

[Guest guest]

All, this is the same principle we are using with the OSAA who denied DCs the right to be team doctors for 'return to play' when finding mild traumatic brain injuries. The right to differentially diagnose, treat and/or refer is a factor of training. This is also why I'm personally against DCs using negative advertising against MDs. The accident reports that assert a provider is not qualified or trained to handle motor vehicle accidents can be inferred violation of fair trade. When mass mailings are done with language that degrades another profession, it's wrong. It may be legal to do so in terms of free speech, but as some of the attorneys on this listserv pointed out, you're still responsible for the consequences. If we hold them responsible, I think that means we should be also.

Minga Guerrero DC

In a message dated 3/31/2008 12:02:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, vsaboe@... writes:

Yes doctor the AMA is running scared and will in fact retract the current language in the current 6th edition the legal dept of the ACA simply referred to the Wilk anti-trust case and the settlement agreement by the AMA and other related groups…one could hear their collective anal sphincters tighten from Albany, Oregon! BTW it was our lead instructor Dr. Warren Jahn that alerted the ACA initially.

Vern Saboe, DC, DACAN, FICC, DABFP, FACO

Lobbyist

Chiropractic Association of Oregon

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of sjerry.rmSent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

Let's see how often this will come up later, though the "Letter" has been issued. G. Smalling, D.C."AMA Limits DC Impairment to Spine Only"After receiving a strongly worded letter from American Chiropractic Association (ACA) legal counsel, the American Medical Association (AMA) has announced that it will take "immediate and visible steps to counteract any potential confusion" regarding language in its Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition that restricted chiropractic impairment evaluations to the spine only. Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a section titled "Fundamental Principles of the Guides," states: "A licensed physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic doctors, if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority to perform ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the spine." Upon learning of this language, ACA general counsel R. Daly sent a letter to the AMA on Feb. 7 that stated, in part: "In our view, the action of the AMA in issuing this standard unlawfully restricts competition and excludes a competitive rival, i.e., doctors of chiropractic from the provision of impairment ratings. We note that neither the ACA, nor any other major chiropractic group, was approached or provided input in the standard setting process that established this new restriction."

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.

The text from the 5th edition says, "Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician." Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term "physician," this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for the text.

Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.

Tom Freedland

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.

The text from the 5th edition says, "Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician." Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term "physician," this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for the text.

Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.

Tom Freedland

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

I am sure there is a method to their " madness " . I am sure there will

be several uses and sites by the insurance companies and courts

because it is in the book itself.

Right in the middle of a court room, the defense will drag out the

6th Edition, and the doctor, nor the plantiff attorney will have the

letter, or it will damage the juries perception of the value of the

Chiropractic testimony.

I am sure it was not an oversite, and will have in impact in certain

States where the law is ambiguous, or it can be challenged.

The AMA had a lot of discussion on the subject, I am sure, before

their decision to change the Guides in this way after all this time.

I was Certified in Imapirment Rating in 1984, with the 3rd edition.

It is a good thing you are pushing to get most Certified, it will

carry weight in the process to get the legislation here.

Keep up the good fight.

G. Smalling, D.C., C.C.S.T.

>

> Yes doctor the AMA is running scared and will in fact retract the

current

> language in the current 6th edition the legal dept of the ACA simply

> referred to the Wilk anti-trust case and the settlement agreement

by the AMA

> and other related groups.one could hear their collective anal

sphincters

> tighten from Albany, Oregon! BTW it was our lead instructor Dr.

Warren Jahn

> that alerted the ACA initially.

>

>

>

> Vern Saboe, DC, DACAN, FICC, DABFP, FACO

>

> Lobbyist

>

> Chiropractic Association of Oregon

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf

> Of sjerry.rm

> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:41 AM

>

> Subject: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

>

>

>

> Let's see how often this will come up later, though the " Letter "

has

> been issued.

>

> G. Smalling, D.C.

>

> " AMA Limits DC Impairment to Spine Only "

>

> After receiving a strongly worded letter from American Chiropractic

> Association (ACA) legal counsel, the American Medical Association

> (AMA) has announced that it will take " immediate and visible steps

to

> counteract any potential confusion " regarding language in its

Guides

> to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition that

> restricted chiropractic impairment evaluations to the spine only.

>

> Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a

section

> titled " Fundamental Principles of the Guides, " states: " A licensed

> physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic

doctors,

> if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority to

perform

> ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the spine. "

Upon

> learning of this language, ACA general counsel R. Daly sent

a

> letter to the AMA on Feb. 7 that stated, in part:

>

> " In our view, the action of the AMA in issuing this standard

> unlawfully restricts competition and excludes a competitive rival,

> i.e., doctors of chiropractic from the provision of impairment

> ratings. We note that neither the ACA, nor any other major

> chiropractic group, was approached or provided input in the

standard

> setting process that established this new restriction. "

>

[Guest guest]

I seriously doubt that the AMA 'had much discussion' about it.

Sunny

Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C

Eugene, Oregon, 97401

541- 344- 0509; Fx; 541- 344- 0955

From: sjerry@...Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:06:06 +0000Subject: Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

I am sure there is a method to their "madness". I am sure there will be several uses and sites by the insurance companies and courts because it is in the book itself. Right in the middle of a court room, the defense will drag out the 6th Edition, and the doctor, nor the plantiff attorney will have the letter, or it will damage the juries perception of the value of the Chiropractic testimony.I am sure it was not an oversite, and will have in impact in certain States where the law is ambiguous, or it can be challenged.The AMA had a lot of discussion on the subject, I am sure, before their decision to change the Guides in this way after all this time.I was Certified in Imapirment Rating in 1984, with the 3rd edition.It is a good thing you are pushing to get most Certified, it will carry weight in the process to get the legislation here. Keep up the good fight. G. Smalling, D.C., C.C.S.T. >> Yes doctor the AMA is running scared and will in fact retract the current> language in the current 6th edition the legal dept of the ACA simply> referred to the Wilk anti-trust case and the settlement agreement by the AMA> and other related groups.one could hear their collective anal sphincters> tighten from Albany, Oregon! BTW it was our lead instructor Dr. Warren Jahn> that alerted the ACA initially.> > > > Vern Saboe, DC, DACAN, FICC, DABFP, FACO> > Lobbyist> > Chiropractic Association of Oregon> > > > _____ > > From: [mailto: ] On Behalf> Of sjerry.rm> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:41 AM> > Subject: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation> > > > Let's see how often this will come up later, though the "Letter" has > been issued. > > G. Smalling, D.C.> > "AMA Limits DC Impairment to Spine Only"> > After receiving a strongly worded letter from American Chiropractic > Association (ACA) legal counsel, the American Medical Association > (AMA) has announced that it will take "immediate and visible steps to > counteract any potential confusion" regarding language in its Guides > to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition that > restricted chiropractic impairment evaluations to the spine only. > > Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a section > titled "Fundamental Principles of the Guides," states: "A licensed > physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic doctors, > if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority to perform > ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the spine." Upon > learning of this language, ACA general counsel R. Daly sent a > letter to the AMA on Feb. 7 that stated, in part: > > "In our view, the action of the AMA in issuing this standard > unlawfully restricts competition and excludes a competitive rival, > i.e., doctors of chiropractic from the provision of impairment > ratings. We note that neither the ACA, nor any other major > chiropractic group, was approached or provided input in the standard > setting process that established this new restriction."> Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.

[Guest guest]

I am sure in Committee, with such a deviation from the past 25 years

regarding who can use the Guides, there was a lot of discussion.

I am also quite certain, their legal advisors looked at it as well,

but took a calculated risk, which took away the ability to use the

Guides for Chiropractors in certain states, that were allowed to use

them in the past.

The Chiropractor I took the course with in 1984, from National

College, actually had quite a bit of input into the 4th Edition of

the Guides, and was utilized to formulate some sections of the Guides

at that time.

G. Smalling, D.C., C.C.S.T.

>> Yes doctor the

AMA is running scared and will in fact retract the current> language

in the current 6th edition the legal dept of the ACA simply> referred

to the Wilk anti-trust case and the settlement agreement by the AMA>

and other related groups.one could hear their collective anal

sphincters> tighten from Albany, Oregon! BTW it was our lead

instructor Dr. Warren Jahn> that alerted the ACA initially.> > > >

Vern Saboe, DC, DACAN, FICC, DABFP, FACO> > Lobbyist> > Chiropractic

Association of Oregon> > > > _____ > > From:

[mailto: ] On

Behalf> Of sjerry.rm> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:41 AM> To:

> Subject: AMA Limits DC

Impairment Evaluation> > > > Let's see how often this will come up

later, though the " Letter " has > been issued. > > G. Smalling, D.C.>

> " AMA Limits DC Impairment to Spine Only " > > After receiving a

strongly worded letter from American Chiropractic > Association (ACA)

legal counsel, the American Medical Association > (AMA) has announced

that it will take " immediate and visible steps to > counteract any

potential confusion " regarding language in its Guides > to the

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition that > restricted

chiropractic impairment evaluations to the spine only. > >

Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a section

> titled " Fundamental Principles of the Guides, " states: " A licensed

> physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic

doctors, > if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority

to perform > ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the

spine. " Upon > learning of this language, ACA general counsel

R. Daly sent a > letter to the AMA on Feb. 7 that stated, in part: >

> " In our view, the action of the AMA in issuing this standard >

unlawfully restricts competition and excludes a competitive rival, >

i.e., doctors of chiropractic from the provision of impairment >

ratings. We note that neither the ACA, nor any other major >

chiropractic group, was approached or provided input in the standard

> setting process that established this new restriction. " >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra

copies. Learn how.

> hthttp://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?

ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_packup_042008

>

[Guest guest]

I agree, and well said.

ph Medlin D.C.Spine Tree Chiropracticwww.spinetreepdx.com

Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.

The text from the 5th edition says, "Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician." Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term "physician," this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for the text.

Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.

Tom Freedland

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

I agree, and well said.

ph Medlin D.C.Spine Tree Chiropracticwww.spinetreepdx.com

Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.

The text from the 5th edition says, "Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician." Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term "physician," this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for the text.

Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.

Tom Freedland

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

Are you kidding me!! They have done

their best to destroy our profession and will continue to do so.

But I guess that’s just my opinion,

Kehr

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of TFreedland@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008

12:42 PM

Subject: Re: AMA

Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

ly, I think many of you are reading

way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this

is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will

grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not

significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

There are a number of errors throughout

the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600

pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course

with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata

volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of

correcting this issue.

The text from the 5th edition says,

" Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician. "

Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term

" physician, " this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not

this faux pas

simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the

intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as

focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because

someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do

limit the scope to spinal conditions.

Rather than think of a conspiracy against

us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at

which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was

made - within the first errata for the text.

Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the

negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health

professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the

argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the

error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a

mistake that is being quickly corrected.

The AMA Guides should be a way for us to

talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge

to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a

class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil

chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.

Tom Freedland

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch

the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

Excellent

logic Dr. Freedland. Positive is

always better than negative. Thank

you.

Larry L. Oliver, DC

408 NW 7th

Corvallis, OR 97330

dro@...

voice 541-757-9933

fax 541-757-7713

The information contained in this

electronic message may contain protected health information which is

confidential under applicable law and is intended only for the use of the

individual or entity named above.

If the recipient of the message is not the intended recipient, you are

hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of this

communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received the communication in error, please notify Heresco

Chiropractic & Associates, 408 NW 7th St, Corvallis, OR 97330, 541-757-9933 and purge the

communication immediately without making any copy or distribution

-----Original

Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf

Of TFreedland@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008

12:42 PM

Subject: Re: AMA

Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

ly,

I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error.

The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems

to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in

today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

There

are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides

The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my

certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he

said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial

distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.

The

text from the 5th edition says, " Impairment evaluations are performed by a

licensed physician. " Since in many states chiropractors are

prohibited from using the term " physician, " this could be seen are

more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a

misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to

clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on

problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not

fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to

spinal conditions.

Rather

than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow

professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized

and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for

the text.

Dr.

Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our

relationships with other health professionals. This

current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we

continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that

- a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being

quickly corrected.

The AMA

Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they

are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical

professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides

and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.

Tom

Freedland

Create

a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch

the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

To appreciate the nature of the language look at the description in AMA 5th. Here it limits the use of the Guides to licensed physicians. By definition that would exclude any chiropractor in a state that prohibits the term "physician." While the initial language in the 6th limits us to the spine, what do most people - including medical doctors and the AMA - think chiropractors deal with? The 6th edition made an effort to include us where previous editions could be construed as excluding us.

An error was made and it was corrected. I would be upset if they insisted on leaving the wording as originally written in the 6th edition. However, they quickly and appropriately responded to the problem when it was pointed out. There are numerous errors in AMA 6th that the editors admit and they are making an effort to correct them as they are found. I did not bother to count the number of people involved in the writing and editing of the AMA Guides. Could one have had a grudge and slip something through? Possibly. But in any text of 600+ pages they are going to be errors. No matter how well one proofreads things can slip by.

I think our efforts can be better directed to other matters, and not dwell on a potential conspiracy.

Tom Freedland

In a message dated 4/1/2008 6:29:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sjerry@... writes:

So, here is the specific language that was in orginally, specifically limiting Chiropractors to "spine only" period, even if their laws authorized them to do "any" Impairment Rating". No error, premeditated and precise. G. Smalling"Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a section titled "Fundamental Principles of the Guides," states: "A licensed physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic doctors, if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority to perform ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the spine.">> I agree, and well said.> > ph Medlin D.C.> Spine Tree Chiropractic> www.spinetreepdx.com> Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation> > > > ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.> > There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.> > The text from the 5th edition says, "Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician." Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term "physician," this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.> > Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for the text. > > Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected. > > The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.> > Tom Freedland> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Doctor, the AMA has consistently attempted to monopolize healthcare in the US. It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, which is why we won an ANTI TRUST lawsuit. Maybe, just maybe you should question why they have now set themselves up as the experts in Alternative care? Care they simultaneously poo poohed and blocked for decades.

For those of you who wish to bury your head in the sand, do not patronize those of us who don't.

Dr B

Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation> > > > ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.> > There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.> > The text from the 5th edition says, "Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician." Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term "physician," this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.> > Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for the text. > > Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected. > > The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.> > Tom Freedland> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.>

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.3/1354 - Release Date: 4/1/2008 5:38 AM

[Guest guest]

So, Tom, they graciously included us to limit, clearly and

precisely. I believe they overlooked the anti-trust implications

from the past, and their legal department saw the hand writing($$$$$)

on the wall.

Make no mistake, the AMA is a trade organization, that is in the

business of promoting their business, not anyone elses.

I don't know how long you have been around, but my first license was

in the last state to license Chiropractors, Louisiana, no licencing

till 1976! Not so long ago, eh?

There was a large billboard on Interstate 10, coming in to Louisiana

that stated, " Louisiana, the ONLY State that doesn't license

Chiropractors. Paid for by the La. Medical Society!

Not throwing stones, but to be acutely aware of how things are, and

were. Make no mistake, the AMA is NOT our friend, though many of us

have good relationships with many in the Medical community. Many of

them do not agree with the AMA, and are not members, but the AMA is

the tiger at the door.

G. Smalling, D.C., C.C.S.T.

> >

> > I agree, and well said.

> >

> > ph Medlin D.C.

> > Spine Tree Chiropractic

> > www.spinetreepdx. ww

> > Re: [From OregonDCs] AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

> >

> >

> >

> > ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what

> is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate

> affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant

that

> there has been a history, but in today's market we are not

> significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

> >

> > There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the

> AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable.

> When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one

of

> the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared

even

> before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this

issue.

> >

> > The text from the 5th edition says, " Impairment evaluations are

> performed by a licensed physician. " Since in many states

> chiropractors are prohibited from using the term " physician, " this

> could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply

> be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the

> intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most

> as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid

> because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice?

Some

> states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

> >

> > Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively

> of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the

> error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was

> made - within the first errata for the text.

> >

> > Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact

> comments can have on our relationships with other health

> professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate

the

> argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and

> see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well

> intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

> >

> > The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground,

> but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us

> further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn

> how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters

> behind every rock, tree, or book.

> >

> > Tom Freedland

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

> ----------

> > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL

Home.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video

on AOL

> Home.

> (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?

video=15 & ncid=aolhom00030000000001)

>

[Guest guest]

Exactly, one only need read the Wilk Court

transcripts or the summary documents.

Vern Saboe

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of sjerry.rm

Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008

9:13 AM

Subject: Re: AMA

Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

So, Tom, they graciously included us to limit, clearly

and

precisely. I believe they overlooked the anti-trust implications

from the past, and their legal department saw the hand writing($$$$$)

on the wall.

Make no mistake, the AMA is a trade organization, that is in the

business of promoting their business, not anyone elses.

I don't know how long you have been around, but my first license was

in the last state to license Chiropractors, Louisiana, no licencing

till 1976! Not so long ago, eh?

There was a large billboard on Interstate 10, coming in to Louisiana

that stated, " Louisiana,

the ONLY State that doesn't license

Chiropractors. Paid for by the La.

Medical Society!

Not throwing stones, but to be acutely aware of how things are, and

were. Make no mistake, the AMA is NOT our friend, though many of us

have good relationships with many in the Medical community. Many of

them do not agree with the AMA, and are not members, but the AMA is

the tiger at the door.

G. Smalling, D.C., C.C.S.T.

> >

> > I agree, and well said.

> >

> > ph Medlin D.C.

> > Spine Tree Chiropractic

> > www.spinetreepdx. ww

> > Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

> >

> >

> >

> > ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what

> is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate

> affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant

that

> there has been a history, but in today's market we are not

> significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

> >

> > There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the

> AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable.

> When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one

of

> the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared

even

> before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this

issue.

> >

> > The text from the 5th edition says, " Impairment evaluations are

> performed by a licensed physician. " Since in many states

> chiropractors are prohibited from using the term " physician, "

this

> could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply

> be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the

> intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most

> as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid

> because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice?

Some

> states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

> >

> > Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively

> of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the

> error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was

> made - within the first errata for the text.

> >

> > Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact

> comments can have on our relationships with other health

> professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate

the

> argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and

> see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well

> intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

> >

> > The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground,

> but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us

> further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn

> how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters

> behind every rock, tree, or book.

> >

> > Tom Freedland

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

> ----------

> > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL

Home.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video

on AOL

> Home.

> (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?

video=15 & ncid=aolhom00030000000001)

>

[Guest guest]

This might have been intentional but

perhaps we have painted ourselves in to the ‘spinal’ corner and the

AMA like the public sees us that way too. ?

s. fuchs dc

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of sjerry.rm

Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:04

PM

Subject: Re: AMA

Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

So, here is the specific language that was in orginally, specifically

limiting Chiropractors to " spine only " period, even if their laws

authorized them to do " any " Impairment Rating " .

No error, premeditated and precise. G. Smalling

" Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a

section titled " Fundamental Principles of the Guides, " states:

" A

licensed physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic

doctors, if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority to

perform ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the

spine. "

>

> I agree, and well said.

>

> ph Medlin D.C.

> Spine Tree Chiropractic

> www.spinetreepdx.com

> Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

>

>

>

> ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what

is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate

affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that

there has been a history, but in today's market we are not

significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

>

> There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the

AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable.

When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of

the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even

before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.

>

> The text from the 5th edition says, " Impairment evaluations are

performed by a licensed physician. " Since in many states

chiropractors are prohibited from using the term " physician, " this

could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply

be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the

intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most

as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid

because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some

states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

>

> Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively

of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the

error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was

made - within the first errata for the text.

>

> Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact

comments can have on our relationships with other health

professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the

argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and

see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well

intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

>

> The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground,

but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us

further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn

how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters

behind every rock, tree, or book.

>

> Tom Freedland

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

----------

> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

>

[Guest guest]

I would have to agree, to that in part. Our division for so many

years as " straights and mixers " , working against each other in so

many ways, has certainly diluted the message.

Two National organizations in 2008, is still a problem, but we are a

feisty group, with a wonderful gift to give the public. We just have

to define what the " gift " truly is. (o;

G. Smalling, D.C.

> >

> > I agree, and well said.

> >

> > ph Medlin D.C.

> > Spine Tree Chiropractic

> > www.spinetreepdx.com

> > Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

> >

> >

> >

> > ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what

> is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate

> affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that

> there has been a history, but in today's market we are not

> significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.

> >

> > There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the

> AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable.

> When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of

> the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared

even

> before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.

> >

> > The text from the 5th edition says, " Impairment evaluations are

> performed by a licensed physician. " Since in many states

> chiropractors are prohibited from using the term " physician, " this

> could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply

> be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the

> intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most

> as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid

> because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice?

Some

> states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.

> >

> > Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively

> of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the

> error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was

> made - within the first errata for the text.

> >

> > Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact

> comments can have on our relationships with other health

> professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the

> argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and

> see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well

> intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected.

> >

> > The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground,

> but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us

> further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn

> how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters

> behind every rock, tree, or book.

> >

> > Tom Freedland

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------------

> ----------

> > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The ongoing discussion about an error in the AMA 6th Guides reminds me of the novel QB VII by Leon Uris, loosely based on a court case occurring after Uris published Exodus. In this story, the main character writes a book on the Holocaust and reports that Dr. Adam Kelno was a notorious concentration camp prisoner/doctor who collaborated with the Nazi’s and performed some 15,000 operations in concentration camps without the benefit of anesthesia. Dr. Kelno survived his concentration camp experience and went on to become a prominent physician. Dr. Kelno bought suit and during the trial it is shown that the figure of 15,000 procedures was an exaggeration. In reality, it was perhaps several hundred or one thousand. In the end, the jury found in Dr. Kelno’s favor awarding him one-half cent, the smallest coin in the realm for damage to his reputation.

Perhaps the comparison is an extreme, but to what end has there been harm. Even if we were to make a case that the error was deliberate – for which we have not shown one iota of evidence, the matter has been corrected and beyond a personal animosity, there has been no lasting damage to our reputation.

It is apparent that some have missed my point. There are at least two sides to a discussion, often more. I have tried to present a side that had not been considered, a view that I consider constructive and proactive for the profession. Those that wish to continue looking for a culprit can argue on. I think I can better use my time researching flights to visit my uncle in Minneapolis.

Tom FreedlandPlanning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.

[Guest guest]

Well, I do believe the AMA would prefer to have the public view us that way but I don't believe we painted ourselves there.....the AMA has attempted in numerous ways to plant that seed thought.

Sunny

Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C

Eugene, Oregon, 97401

541- 344- 0509; Fx; 541- 344- 0955

From: sharronf@...Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:35:53 -0700Subject: RE: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

This might have been intentional but perhaps we have painted ourselves in to the ‘spinal’ corner and the AMA like the public sees us that way too. ?

s. fuchs dc

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of sjerry.rmSent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:04 PM Subject: Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

So, here is the specific language that was in orginally, specifically limiting Chiropractors to "spine only" period, even if their laws authorized them to do "any" Impairment Rating". No error, premeditated and precise. G. Smalling"Specifically, the language in question, found on page 20 in a section titled "Fundamental Principles of the Guides," states: "A licensed physician must perform impairment evaluations. Chiropractic doctors, if authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional authority to perform ratings under the Guides, should restrict rating to the spine.">> I agree, and well said.> > ph Medlin D.C.> Spine Tree Chiropractic> www.spinetreepdx.com> Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation> > > > ly, I think many of you are reading way too much into what is a simple error. The paranoid reaction that this is a deliberate affront to our profession seems to be an extreme. I will grant that there has been a history, but in today's market we are not significant to the MD's day in and day out practice.> > There are a number of errors throughout the 6th edition of the AMA Guides The text is over 600 pages. Errors are unavoidable. When I took my certification course with Brigham, MD - one of the senior editors - he said an errata volume was being prepared even before the initial distribution, inclusive of correcting this issue.> > The text from the 5th edition says, "Impairment evaluations are performed by a licensed physician." Since in many states chiropractors are prohibited from using the term "physician," this could be seen are more restrictive. Could not this faux pas simply be a misunderstanding by the reviewer of Chapter 2? Perhaps the intent was to clarify and include us. Chiropractic is seen by most as focusing on problems of the spine. Are we becoming paranoid because someone did not fully appreciate our scope of practice? Some states do limit the scope to spinal conditions.> > Rather than think of a conspiracy against us and talk negatively of fellow professionals, we should embrace the speed at which the error was recognized and the rapid nature that the correction was made - within the first errata for the text. > > Dr. Guerrero has been reminding us of the negative impact comments can have on our relationships with other health professionals. This current discussion would seem to perpetuate the argument. Do we continue to live in the past, or move forward and see the error as simply that - a mistake; perhaps even a well intentioned one, but a mistake that is being quickly corrected. > > The AMA Guides should be a way for us to talk on common ground, but it seems as if they are being used as a wedge to separate us further from other medical professionals. Take a class and learn how to use the AMA Guides and stop seeing evil chiropractic haters behind every rock, tree, or book.> > Tom Freedland> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------> Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.>

Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.

[Guest guest]

That is a very sad story. I don’tbelieve the medical profession is irreversibly ‘scorpionized however. Wedo have watch dogs now, which we didn’t in the past. Like Vern. We werenot at the table during WC reform in the early 90’s we were on the ‘menu’( thanks Chuck). Some of the wrongs against us have been for lack of attention,care, and thinking on our part. We are smarter now. So are many otherhealthcare professions. Let’s improve ourselves.Let’s not criticizeanyone but ourselves and go forward from a position of knowledge and strength.That is where improvement lies. s. fuchs dc From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of sjerry.rmSent: Thursday, April 03, 200810:18 AM Subject: Re: AMALimits DC Impairment Evaluation Well, Tom, there is always the story of the scorpionand the frog. The scorpion asks the frog for a ride on his back acroos the water. The frog says, " Oh, no, if I do, you will sting me and I will drown " .To this the scorpion says, " If I do that, I will drown too, that would be crasy! " The frog thinks, well he was right. The frog says get on. Halfway across the water, the scorpion stings the frog, as they are both drowning, the frog proclaims, " Why did you do that, now we both will drown! " The scorpion says, " I am sorry, but that is what scorpions do. " G. Smalling, D.C.>> > The ongoing discussion about an error in the AMA 6th Guides reminds me of > the novel QB VII by Leon Uris, loosely based on a court case occurring after > Uris published Exodus. In this story, the main character writes a book on the > Holocaust and reports that Dr. Adam Kelno was a notorious concentration camp > prisoner/doctor who collaborated with the Nazi’s andperformed some 15,000 > operations in concentration camps without the benefit of anesthesia. Dr. > Kelno survived his concentration camp experience and went on to become a > prominent physician. Dr. Kelno bought suit and during the trial it is shown that the > figure of 15,000 procedures was an exaggeration. In reality, it was > perhaps several hundred or one thousand. In the end, the jury found in Dr. Kelno’s > favor awarding him one-half cent, the smallest coin in the realm for damage > to his reputation. > Perhaps the comparison is an extreme, but to what end has there been harm. > Even if we were to make a case that the error was deliberate†" for which we > have not shown one iota of evidence, the matter has been corrected and beyond > a personal animosity, there has been no lasting damage to our reputation. > It is apparent that some have missed my point. There are at least two sides > to a discussion, often more. I have tried to present a side that had not > been considered, a view that I consider constructive and proactive for the > profession. Those that wish to continue looking for a culprit can argue on. I > think I can better use my time researching flights to visit my uncle in > Minneapolis.> Tom Freedland> > > > **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. > (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)>

[Guest guest]

Re: This Chiropractic Review Board

(CRiB)

They should call it the Chiropractic Review Activities Board

(CRAB)

And all appeals should go to the:

Chiropractic Review Activities Board of Appeals of Professional Performance Legal Enforcement

(CRABAPPLE)

Offender’s punishment could be handed out the governor’s standing committee:

Department Ensuring Enforcement of Professional Standing Health Improvement Team.

(etc.)

Do I have to do all the work around here?

( E. Abrahamson, D.C.)

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

From: Sunny Kierstyn <skrndc1@...>

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:47:59 -0700

" M. s, D.C. " <drbobdc83@...>, < >

Subject: RE: [sPAM]RE: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

That's a good thought, ,.....my first thought about it is: how would you separate the field committee from the OBCE/Peer Review process now. Meaning, what would be the critria to send a complaint to one or the other? Or would it be a serial process?

Sunny

Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC

Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon

2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C

Eugene, Oregon, 97401

541- 344- 0509; Fx; 541- 344- 0955

From: drbobdc83@...

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:36:42 -0700

Subject: Re: [sPAM]RE: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation



I like Dr. Fuchs' notion to improve ourselves and not criticize others...

And, toward that end, we could do ourselves a BIG favor, as a profession, by establishing a volunteer " Review Board " (I know, I know...we already have a State Board), but we should have a professional REVIEW BOARD (similar to the attorney's Professional Responsibility Committee) that insurance companies (i.e. SAIF corporation) could utilize to bring complaints to, or accusations of fraud, abuse, or over-utilization, that would consist of FIELD DOCTORS reviewing other field doctors...(first; prior to Board intervention).

This Chiropractic Review Board (CRiB) could also hear complaints and review IME's, etc...(end of bogus IME's). Had SAIF had some entity to turn to back in 1989...(other than the State Board) perhaps we could have worked with them and avoided 1197...(But, remember, in the 80's...a 75-100 visit treatment was nothing...).

So, as we move forward, and regain some of our lost rights..we need to heed what Dr. Fuchs is saying...and " check ourselves " first...(and not even let issues get to the Board and/or the Legislature).

(Ok...my one complex thought for the day). (:-)

M. s, D.C.

Re: AMA Limits DC Impairment Evaluation

Well, Tom, there is always the story of the scorpion and the frog.

The scorpion asks the frog for a ride on his back acroos the water.

The frog says, " Oh, no, if I do, you will sting me and I will drown " .

To this the scorpion says, " If I do that, I will drown too, that

would be crasy! " The frog thinks, well he was right.

The frog says get on. Halfway across the water, the scorpion stings

the frog, as they are both drowning, the frog proclaims, " Why did you

do that, now we both will drown! "

The scorpion says, " I am sorry, but that is what scorpions do. "

G. Smalling, D.C.

>

>

> The ongoing discussion about an error in the AMA 6th Guides

reminds me of

> the novel QB VII by Leon Uris, loosely based on a court case

occurring after

> Uris published Exodus. In this story, the main character writes

a book on the

> Holocaust and reports that Dr. Adam Kelno was a notorious

concentration camp

> prisoner/doctor who collaborated with the Nazi’s and performed

some 15,000

> operations in concentration camps without the benefit of

anesthesia. Dr.

> Kelno survived his concentration camp experience and went on to

become a

> prominent physician. Dr. Kelno bought suit and during the trial

it is shown that the

> figure of 15,000 procedures was an exaggeration. In reality, it

was

> perhaps several hundred or one thousand. In the end, the jury

found in Dr. Kelno’s

> favor awarding him one-half cent, the smallest coin in the realm

for damage

> to his reputation.

> Perhaps the comparison is an extreme, but to what end has there

been harm.

> Even if we were to make a case that the error was deliberate †"

for which we

> have not shown one iota of evidence, the matter has been corrected

and beyond

> a personal animosity, there has been no lasting damage to our

reputation.

> It is apparent that some have missed my point. There are at least

two sides

> to a discussion, often more. I have tried to present a side that

had not

> been considered, a view that I consider constructive and proactive

for the

> profession. Those that wish to continue looking for a culprit can

argue on. I

> think I can better use my time researching flights to visit my

uncle in

> Minneapolis.

> Tom Freedland

>

>

>

> **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel

Guides.

> (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?

ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)

>

Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic. <http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164 & ocid=T003MSN51N1653A>