Printer Friendly Email a Friend PDF RSS Feed

Dynamic Chiropractic – February 26, 2008, Vol. 26, Issue 05

Looking Back: 1987

By Editorial Staff

As we celebrate our 25th anniversary as the definitive news and information source for the chiropractic profession, we look back at the important events as reported in DC since 1983, while also looking forward to the future.

Throughout 2008, we will feature a review of the top headlines in chiropractic for a given year, along with an article on the future of chiropractic authored by an influential member of the profession.


July 1987: Chicago Four Scores Big; AHA Settles Out of Court

On Friday, June 26, 1987, in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Judge Susan Getzendanner will hear final arguments from the attorneys representing the American Medical Association, et al, and attorney George P. McAndrews, representing the "Chicago Four" (Drs. Chester A. Wilk, Patricia B. Arthur, James W. Bryden and Michael D. Pedigo). Judge Getzendanner announced that she will rule on the case on that date. A complete report will be published in the July 15 issue of Dynamic Chiropractic.

Not wanting to wait for the judge's ruling, the American Hospital Association (AHA) elected to enter into a settlement on June 12, 1987, two weeks prior. Only the AHA and their attorneys know all the reasons why they preferred to "settle" quickly before the judge would rule, thereby taking themselves out of the case completely. However, testimony the likes of Dr. Per Freitag, a professor of orthopedics, that holds both MD and a PhD degrees, certainly didn't help their case.

Dr. Freitag conducted a study of the average orthopedic in-patient's stay at two Chicago-area hospitals: JFK Hospital, which has doctors of chiropractic treating patients in the hospital; and Lutheran General Hospital, which does not allow DCs to treat patients. Dr. Freitag testified that his study showed that in-patient stay at JFK Hospital averaged 5-7 days compared to an average of 14 days at Lutheran General Hospital. Projecting this study economically, it shows costs of about $8,000 more per patient at the hospital without chiropractic. What makes this study so significant is that it was done by a medical doctor and thereby was not subject to the charge of professional bias.

Dr. Freitag also testified that the maternity ward at JFK Hospital is using chiropractic in place of intradermal steroids with great success and without the danger of steroids to the women.

Dr. Chester A. Wilk stated, "This is a big win for the people. It is a major step in tearing down the wall that has been dividing the two largest members of the healing arts and keeping them from working together for the benefit of the suffering. In all our legal efforts financial rewards have never been our goal. Instead we have been battling for the patient to make certain chiropractic is available to everyone that needs and wants it."

Paragraph seven of the settlement agreement with the American Hospital Association has been highlighted on this page (see below) and members of the chiropractic profession may wish to photocopy this statement by the AHA and circulate it within their communities, to the board members of local hospitals and of course, to their patients. What follows is the entire settlement agreement, word-for-word:

AGREEMENT Preamble

  • This agreement is executed on behalf of Dr. Chester A. Wilk, D.C., Dr. James W. Bryden, D.C., Dr. Patricia B. Arthur, D.C. and Dr. Michael D. Pedigo, D.C. ("the plaintiffs") and the American Hospital Association ("AHA") to resolve all issues that were raised or could have been raised against the AHA in the lawsuit entitled "Dr. Chester A. Wilk, D.C., Dr. James W. Bryden, D.C., Dr. Patricia B. Arthur, D.C. and Dr. Michael D. Pedigo, D.C. v. American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, American College of Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Joint Commission of Accreditation of Hospitals, American College of Radiology, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, H. Doyl Taylor, Dr. Joseph A. Sabatier, M.d., H. Thomas Ballantine, M.D., and James H. Sammons, M.D." ("Wilk, et al v. AMA, et al"), No 76 C 3777, now pending (after remand) in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.
  • Both the plaintiffs and the AHA ("the parties") believe that this Agreement is in the best interest of all concerned because it will terminate this action promptly and avoid the expense of further trials and appeals. The parties agree that this Agreement is the compromise of disputed claims. It is further agreed and understood that the AHA denies any liability or indebtedness of the ANA to the plaintiffs, that the AHA denies the violation of any laws and that this settlement is not to be construed as an admission of any violation, fault or liability oaf any kind on the part of the AHA or others who are the beneficiaries of the covenants by plaintiffs as set forth herein.
Court Proceedings
  • This action must be dismissed with prejudice subject to the terms of this Agreement before the AHA shall be required to implement any of the actions contemplated by this Agreement. The court will be asked to retain jurisdiction of the parties to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
  • Within two (2) business days after the execution of this Agreement, the parties shall file with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois a joint motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, subject to the terms of this Agreement, as against the AHA only. The AHA will admit no liability and the parties will make no admissions of act other than those specifically set forth in this Agreement. It is understood, however, that evidence collected to date from or involving AHA and its employees may be used by the plaintiffs in the ongoing trial of Civil Action 76 C 3777.

Covenant Not to Sue

  • In consideration of the AHA's agreement to implement the actions contemplated by this Agreement, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their agents, assigns, heirs, executors and beneficiaries of any kind, hereby covenant not to continue this suit and agree not to institute any other action, suit, demand or cause of action against the AHA, or against its present, future and former assigns, successors, officers, governors, trustees, employees, members, delegates, committees and other representatives when acting on behalf of or as representatives of the AHA, based upon facts that occurred, in whole or in part, before the date of this Agreement. This paragraph shall not be interpreted to extend to nonsettling defendants or officers or directors of nonsettling defendants.

Nonsettling Defendants

  • The fact of this Agreement between the plaintiffs and the AHA shall not be construed to affect in any manner any joint or several liability of any nonsettling defendants for the alleged conspiracy and other acts alleged in the complaint. This Agreement shall not be interpreted as a release of any claims against such nonsettling defendants.

Statement of the American Hospital Association with respect to the Profession of Chiropractic and Hospitals

  • In this Statement, the American Hospital Association sets forth and reaffirms its policy regarding the practice of chiropractic in a hospital setting.

It is the policy of the American Hospital Association that individual hospitals themselves determine whether chiropractic services are to be provided in a hospital setting. This determination is made by the hospital's governing board taking into consideration, among other legitimate factors: state law, the needs of the patient constituency of the hospital, and appropriate procedural rules and regulations, having in mind the protection of the legitimate interest of the patient and the hospital. Such considerations are no different with other licensed health care professionals. The American Hospital Association notes that, in line with such considerations, hospitals that are members of the American Hospital Association have incorporated chiropractic care into a hospital setting, where other licensed health care practitioners and doctors of chiropractic work in a common setting.

The American Hospital Association specifically disavows any unlawful effort by any private, competitive group to "contain", "eliminate" or to undermine the public's confidence in the profession of chiropractic.

The Association has no objection to a hospital granting privileges to doctors of chiropractic, where consistent with law, for the purpose of: (1) administering chiropractic treatment to patients who wish to have such treatment, whether administered in conjunction with or separate from other health care treatment or services administered by medical doctors or other licensed professional health care providers; (2) furthering the clinical education and training of doctors of chiropractic; or (3) having new diagnostic x-rays, clinical laboratory tests and reports thereon, made for doctors of chiropractic and their patients, and/or previously taken diagnostic x-rays, clinical laboratory tests and reports thereon made available to them, by individual pathologists or radiologists employed by or associated with such hospital, upon the request or authorization of the patient involved.

Those hospitals that are interested in learning more about chiropractic and the practice of chiropractic in a hospital setting may contact either the International Chiropractors' Association, 1901 "L" Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20036 or the American Chiropractic Association, 1916 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22201. These groups can also provide, upon request and with the hospital's consent, a list of some of the hospitals that currently provide chiropractic services or that have granted privileges to doctors of chiropractic.

  • The AHA will publish the foregoing statement of paragraph 7 in the July 20 and August 5 editions of HOSPITALS magazine, in the August issue of TRUSTEE and in the June 29 and July 6 editions of AHA NEWS. Reference to the statement shall appear on the July 290 and August 5 covers of HOSPITAL and the August cover of TRUSTEE. In the magazines the statement shall appear with no other material on the page and with reference to the statement, by title and page reference, on the index page of each issue. It shall also appear on one of the first three pages of the AHA NEWS, and shall be referred to in the index that appears on Page 1. In addition, on or before July 1, 1987, the statement that appears above in paragraph 7 shall be sent to the chief executive officer of each hospital member of the AHA, by first class mail, postage prepaid, in a mailing that include no other material.
  • During the term of this agreement, the AHA will respond to inquiries concerning chiropractic to which it chooses to respond in a manner consistent with the foregoing statement and may refer to the statement. In addition to the foregoing statement, with respect to inquiries concerning hospital staff privileges to which AHA chooses to respond, it may also issue the following statement:

It is the position of the AHA that hospitals are the determiners of which licensed provider groups, according to state law, may be admitted to practice in each respective hospital. This position is not intended to negate the exercise of the discretion that any and all hospitals have to consult with whomever they chose in making such determination.

  • By acceptance of this Agreement, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their assigns, heirs, agents, executors, and beneficiaries of any kind, waive any and all claims for damages and accept the terms of this Agreement in lieu of any claims of attorney fees, costs, and expenses against the AHA and its present, future, and former trustees, officers, employees, agents and all other representative based upon facts that occurred, in whole or in part, before the date of this Agreement. No waiver of attorneys' fees, costs, expenses against any of the remaining defendants is to be inferred from this paragraph.

Term of Agreement

  • The term of this Agreement will be ten (10 years fro the date of execution of this Agreement, except with respect to paragraph 5 above which shall continue without any time limitation.

Retention of Documents & Other Evidence

  • For the term of the agreement or for as long as the lawsuit WILK, et al v. AMA et al is pending (whichever is the shortest period), the parties hereto agree to retain all documents and other evidence, if any, in their possession, custody or control or in the possession, custody or control of their attorneys or agents, relating to the lawsuit. It is understood that plaintiffs intend to utilize some of the evidence or documents obtained from the AHA or involving the AHA or its employees in the further conduct of the ongoing suit against the remaining defendants.
  • Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the rights of the AHA to engage in legislative or lobbying activities with respect to any subject, including chiropractic, and to comment upon and criticize practices that, in the judgment the AHA or its members, are inimical to good health care.

Applicability

  • This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of defendant AHA and the plaintiffs and each of their respective successors, affiliates, officers, trustees, employees, agents, heirs, executors, assigns and other representatives (as defined in paragraph 5 hereof).

Order of Court in Remaining Litigation

  • In the event that a final Order issues from the ongoing litigation, none of the parties to the Agreement will interfere with the implementation of that order. Nor shall such order release any party from the obligation of this Agreement.

Modification

  • This Agreement may not be changed, modified or altered except by an agreement in writing signed by the AHA and the plaintiffs.

Entire Agreement

  • This Agreement represents the full and complete agreement between the AHA and the plaintiffs, and no other agreement exists.

The Agreement was signed June 12, 1987 by David F. Drake, the Secretary/Treasurer of the American Hospital Association and by George P. McAndrews, attorney and duly authorized agent for Drs. Wilk, Arthur, Bryden & Pedigo.


September 1987: After 11 Years, a Federal Judge in Chicago Finds the AMA Guilty!

The American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiology were found guilty in U.S. District Court of having conspired to destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) was found to have "knowingly joined the conspiracy but to have ceased its participation in 1986 with no likelihood that AAOS would renew any boycott or conspiracy against chiropractors."

In a 101-page opinion release on Thursday, Aug. 27, 1987 in Chicago, United States District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner ruled that the American Medical Association and its co-conspirators had violated the Sherman Antitrust laws of the United States. Judge Getzendanner ruled that they had done this by organizing a national boycott of doctors of chiropractic by medical physicians and hospitals using an ethics ban on inter-professional cooperation.

Evidence at the trial showed that the defendants took active steps, often covert, to undermine chiropractic educational institutions, conceal evidence of the usefulness of chiropractic care, undercut insurance programs for patients of chiropractic, subvert government inquiries into the efficacy of chiropractic, engage in a massive disinformation campaign to discredit and destabilize the chiropractic profession and engaged in numerous other activities to maintain a medical physician monopoly over health care in this country.

The lengthy decision dealt a heavy blow to the credibility of the American Medical Association - the nation's largest medical trade association, which represents the economic interest of some 250,000 of the nation's 500,000 medical physicians.

Judge Getzendanner ruled:

"I conclude that in injunction is necessary in this case. There are lingering effects of the conspiracy; the AMA has never acknowledged the lawlessness of its past conduct and in fact to this day maintains that it has always been in compliance with the antitrust laws; there has never been an affirmative statement by the AMA that it is ethical to associate with chiropractors; there has never been a public statement to AMA members of the admissions made in this court about the improved nature of chiropractic despite the fact that the AMA today claims that it made changes in its policy in recognition of the change and improvement in chiropractic; there has never been public retraction of articles such as 'The Right and Duty of Hospitals to Deny Chiropractor Access to Hospitals'; a medical physician ha to very carefully read the current AMA Judicial Council Opinions to realize that there has been a change in the treatment of chiropractors and the court cannot assume that members of the AMA pore over these opinions; and finally, the systematic, long-term wrongdoing and the long-term intent to destroy a licensed profession suggest that an injunction is appropriate in this case. When all of these factors are considered in the context of this 'private attorney general' antitrust suit, a proper exercise of the court's discretion permits, and in my judgment requires, an injunction." (Opinion pp. 48-49).

The decision confirmed the AMA as the leading professional violator of the nation's antitrust laws. In 1943 the AMA was convicted of a criminal violation of the antitrust laws for its attempt to destroy an innovative and cost-cutting health care insurance and delivery system in Washington, D.C. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1982, the AMA was found guilty, by the Federal Trade Commission, of a decades-long, systematic violation of the antitrust laws for restricting informative advertising by medical physicians and for banning innovative group practice and medical physician hiring practices. Acting as attorneys for the Federal Trade Commission on the latter case, the United States Department of Justice told the Supreme Court that the AMA's "long history of illegal behavior strongly supports the need for a remedy to reverse the effects of the restraints of trade they have imposed."

The Administrative Law Judge of the Federal Trade Commission had ruled that the AMA had created a formidable impediment to competition in the delivery of health care services by physicians in this country. That barrier has served to deprive consumers of the free flow of information about the availability of health care services, to deter the offering of innovative forms of health care and to stifle the rise of almost every type of health care delivery that could potentially pose a threat to the income of fee-for-service physicians in private practice. The costs to the public in terms of less expensive or even, perhaps, more improved forms of medical services are great. The decision of the FTC was also upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Evidence in the case demonstrated that the AMA knew of scientific studies implying that chiropractic care was twice as effective as medical care in relieving many painful conditions of the neck and back, as well as related musculoskeletal problems. There was also evidence that the AMA knew that chiropractic care of pregnant women greatly reduced the pain and suffering experienced by women during the months leading up to and at the time of delivery, without the need for chemical painkillers that could be harmful to both mother and child. Evidence also demonstrated the efficacy of chiropractic care both in and out of the hospital setting. Testimony indicated that few medical physicians were educated in or had the expertise of doctors of chiropractic in problems involving the musculoskeletal system, which comprises 60 percent of the body.

There also was some evidence before the Committee that chiropractic was effective - more effective than the medical profession in treating certain kinds of problems such as workmen's back injuries. The Committee on Quackery was also aware that some medical physicians believed chiropractic to be effective and that chiropractors were better trained to deal with musculoskeletal problems than most medical physicians.

Recognizing in the early 1960s that more and more people were taking their musculoskeletal problems to doctors of chiropractic the AMA moved forcefully to undercut the rapid growth of the profession of chiropractic, now the nation's second largest primary health care provider group.

Judge Getzendanner, who heard evidence in the case from May 5 through July 2, 1987, ruled that the actions of the AMA and it's co-conspirators over the past 25 years had resulted in serious damage to the competitive process in health care, the profession of chiropractic as a whole, as well as to individual doctors of chiropractic and the patients they serve. Judge Getzendanner indicated that she is still working on the Order of Injunction that she will issue in an effort to prevent further illegal actions by the AMA and its co-conspirators and to correct some of the adverse effects of the antitrust violations.

Other defendants in addition to the AMA, ACS, ACR, and AAOS included the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Hospitals and the American College of Physicians. The Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to tie the JCAH and ACP into the antitrust conspiracy. The American Hospital Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and the American Osteopathic Association settled with the chiropractors before the Judge's decision. Plaintiff doctors of chiropractic in the action included Chester A. Wilk, DC, of Park Ridge, Ill.; Patricia B. Arthur, DC, of Dayton, Ohio; and James W. Bryden, DC, of San Leandro, Calif.

In commenting on the decision, the former president of the nation's largest chiropractic college, J.F. McAndrews, DC, now practicing in Harbor Springs, Mich., stated:

"The AMA took both arrogance and ignorance to new levels of foolishness. Between those characteristics the AMA crushed all common sense. As an educator and administrator I spent almost 25 years combating the despicable actions of the AMA now declared to be illegal by the Court. How many students, patients and professionals have had to suffer from the AMA's folly. Perhaps now the government will listen when we point out the corrupt power exercised by the AMA. Perhaps now the people of the United States can get cooperative care from all segments of the health care spectrum."

Dr. Wilk, in commenting on the outcome of the trial, stated:

"Eleven years of litigation have demonstrated the folly of allowing the AMA, whose primary purpose for existence is the economic interest of medical physicians, to sit in judgment or, control of any other licensed health care provider. I believe the Congress, State Legislatures, the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and corresponding state law enforcement agencies should appoint task forces to probe the AMA and the cancer in health care represented by the conspiracy we have proven in this case. Every sick person and every taxpayer in this country has suffered because of the actions of the AMA. I do not believe that private parties such as the plaintiffs in this action should ever again have to shoulder the enormous burden of challenging a well-funded monolith such as the AMA."

Dr. Pedigo, a plaintiff in the action and president of the national organization of doctors of chiropractic, commented:

"The profession of chiropractic had its beginnings only ninety-two years ago in the United States. It developed rapidly following World War II and the Korean War spurred by its expertise and successes in efficiently relieving spinal referred pain, headaches, joint dysfunctions and other neuro-spinal problems at low cost and without drugs - problems that were not being adequately addressed or studied by the medical profession. The all- out assault on chiropractic waged by the AMA and its co-conspirators was actually an undeclared war on the sick people who dared to challenge the arrogance and ignorance of the medical community by seeking help from doctors of chiropractic. The AMA's actions have tarnished the image of medical physicians everywhere. As we have in the past, we renew our request that medical physicians and chiropractic physicians join their respective areas of expertise for the good of their primary constituency: the people of the United States who experience poor health, those who find themselves confined to hospitals or those who generally wish to maintain themselves in optimum state of health."


October 1987: AMA, 275,000 Members Permanently Enjoined by Federal Court

The American Medical Association and its 275,000 members, when working in concert with the AMA, were permanently enjoined Sept. 25, 1987 by United States District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner from "restricting, regulating or impeding or aiding and abetting others from restricting, regulating, or impeding the freedom of any AMA member or any institution or hospital to make and individual decision as to whether or not that AMA member, institution, or hospital shall professionally associate with chiropractors, chiropractic students, or chiropractic institutions."

The Order of Permanent Injunction issued by the Court requires the AMA to: 1) send copies of the Order of Injunction to each of its 275,000 members; 2) to modify the official AMA Judicial Council Opinions and Reports to reflect the AMA's representations to the Court that is now "ethical for a medical physician to professionally associate with chiropractors provided the physician believes that such an association is in the best interest of its patient;" and 3) to publish the Injunction Order in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The AMA, which in 1963 commenced working aggressively, in the words of the Court, to "overtly and covertly" eliminate the profession and chiropractic in the United States, found itself on the day the injunction was issued precisely where it was in 1963 - standing alone. In the last three days prior to the issuance of the Court's injunction against the AMA, co-defendants ACR (American College of Radiology) and the ACS (American College of Surgeons) reached settlement agreements with the four plaintiff chiropractors terminating the litigations as to them in return for policy statements of those organizations to their members affirming the right of their members to freely associate with doctors of chiropractic in hospitals, private practice, research, educational endeavors and any other legal setting.

Both the ACS and the ACR made payments of $200,000 - the ACS payment being made to Kentuckiana Children's Center in Louisville, Ky., a home for mentally and physically retarded children, which, the evidence in the trial demonstrated, was the victim of a concerted effort by various medical associations to either close the Center or forbid medical physicians to cooperate with the Center's founder, Dr. Lorraine Golden, a chiropractor, in the health care of the children. With the support of the city of Louisville, Kentuckiana has just launched an aggressive expansion program to build new facilities to care for up to 1,000 mentally and physically retarded children. The $200,000 gift by the American College of Surgeons is the first contribution to the fund drive for the expansion.

The $200,000 payment by the American college of Radiology was to help defray the plaintiff chiropractors' legal expenses in bringing the suit.

The nine-page Order of Permanent Injunction entered by Judge Getzendanner against the AMA is the outgrowth of an exhaustive Opinion entered by the judge on Aug. 27, 1987, outlining the AMA's efforts to enlist medical societies throughout the United States in its efforts to destroy the profession of chiropractic. The Court found that the boycott engineered by the American Medical Association in the conspiracy with the other medical societies had resulted in a restraint on competition in the health care field in serious damage to the profession of chiropractic and the doctors of chiropractic. The Court concluded that, while the AMA had some good faith, even if mistaken, concerns regarding the profession of chiropractic in the early 1960s, that subsequent information made known to the AMA about the effectiveness and therapeutic value of chiropractic care rendered the boycott objectively unreasonable.

Evidence at the trial indicated that doctors of chiropractic were twice as effective as medical physicians in returning injured industrial workers with back and neck problems to their job. Other evidence indicated that doctors of chiropractic working in hospital settings allowed orthopedic patients to be discharged form the hospital in five to seven days as compared to an average of 14 days in a comparable hospital where chiropractors were not allowed to practice.

The chairman of the Board of Trustees of the AMA had testified at the trial that "the nature of services that are being delivered by chiropractors are now diverse and include some forms of manipulation that do not have a scientific basis." The evidence at the trial prompted Judge Getzendanner to hold:

"Thus the AMA's own evidence suggests that at some point during the boycott there was no longer an objectively reasonable concern that would support a boycott of the entire chiropractic profession."

In justifying the issuance of the injunction, the District Court stated:

"The injury to chiropractors' reputation which resulted form the boycott has not been repaired. Chiropractors suffer current economic injury as a result of the boycott. The AMA has never affirmatively acknowledged that there were and should be no collective impediments to professional association and cooperation between chiropractors and medical physicians except as provided by law."

The Court criticized the AMA's pronouncements that its conduct has not violated the antitrust laws.

Original defendants in the suit included: the American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, American College of Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, American College of Radiology, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Illinois State Medical Society, Chicago Medical Society, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the American Osteopathic Association, H. Doyl Taylor, Joseph A. Sabatier, MD, H. Thomas Ballantine, MD, and James H. Sammons, MD.

The plaintiff chiropractors have previously settled with the Illinois State Medical Society, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the Chicago Medical Society, the American Osteopathic Association, and the American Hospital Association. The Court found that the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and the Executive Vice President of the AMA, Dr. Sammons, had also knowingly and willingly participated in the conspiracy to destroy the profession of chiropractic, but declined to issue an injunction against them since there was little likelihood that either of them would engage in conspiratorial practices in the future.

Under the antitrust laws the AMA may be liable for up to $2 million in fees and costs that are usually assessed against the losing part in an antitrust suit.

In commenting on the Permanent Injunction, Chester A. Wilk, DC, of Park Ridge, Ill., stated:

"The issuance of the injunction comes as sweet news to me and my patients as well as to the 40,000 other doctors of chiropractic in the United States who have waited 11 long years to see the American Medical Association called account for its illegal actions in trying to suppress the competition we offer medical physicians in provision of health care services to the American people. I believe the first victims of the boycott, however, were those medical physician members of the AMA who were denied the right to utilize doctors of chiropractic and their recognized expertise in dealing with problems of the neuromusculoskeletal system. The AMA is not a charitable organization. It is a trade association that exists to protect the financial needs of its members even when the goal runs counter to the health, welfare and safety of the American people, and even with it is directly contrary to the will of all 50 state legislatures and the Congress of the United States.

"I am gratified that once again the Courts of the United States have helped to balance the scales of justice against the often unbridled power of the American Medical Association. This is the third time the American Medical Association has been found to have violated the antitrust laws in efforts to stifle or eliminate competition in the health care world. Possibly the decision will alert Congress and State legislatures, as well as law enforcement officials, to the fact that the AMA's unceasing efforts to suppress competition are a primary cause of the nature's exploding health care costs. The AMA obviously did not learn a lesson from its prior convictions for violating the antitrust laws. I and the nation's chiropractors can only hope that the third finding of guilty will convince the AMA leadership that the AMA is not above the law. I look forward to commencing usual dialogue and cooperation with medical physicians for the benefit of all our patients."


To report inappropriate ads, click here.