Paul W. Pratt, D.C. v. AZ Board of Chiropractic Examiners


Bookmark and Share

The Board alleged Dr. Pratt committed violations including "failure to clearly designate himself as a Chiropractic Doctor/Physician, referencing a 'confidential report', possessing skills that other health care practitioners do not possess, and disclosing the names of patients without first having obtained informed consent." They found violations and imposed discipline consisting of a $250 fine, a cease and desist order for the advertising, two years' probation, and requirements to take the NBCE Ethics and Boundaries Exam and the Arizona Board's Jurisprudence Exam.

Dr. Pratt challenged the Board in Superior Court. The Court lruled in his favor almost 100% and tossed out the vast majority of the Board's discipline as arbitrary, capricious and excessive. ACS filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief (read here) to advise the court that ACS agreed the penalty was clearly arbitrary and excessive. The Judge's ruling, and his denial for reconsideration of his ruling, are posted on this webpage. The AAC, a proxy for the Board, would never file an Amicus brief in such a case.

This is a landmark case since it confirms the facts on this webpage and in ACS publications. ACS has stated consistently for years that the Chiropractic Board is "excessive, arbitrary and capricious" with its disciplinary rulings. The Board and its allies at the AAC have disagreed. Now, Judge Michael Miller of Pima County Superior Court, an independent and objective party, has agreed with ACS. The time is long past for the Board to change its practices and for the AAC to stop supporting the status quo.