Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 27, Issue 7 , Pages 472-477 , September 2004

Chiropractors Disciplined by a State Chiropractic Board and a Comparison with Disciplined Medical Physicians

  • Stephen M. Foreman, DC

      Affiliations

    • Private practice of chiropractic, and Faculty, Natural Sciences Department, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, Calif
    • Corresponding Author InformationStephen M. Foreman, DC, Chiropractic Research Associates, 7320 Woodlake Avenue, #370, West Hills, CA 91307
    • ,
  • Michael J. Stahl, DC

      Affiliations

    • Private practice of chiropractic, and Faculty, Natural Sciences Department, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, Calif

Received 23 April 2003 ,Revised 22 May 2003

References 

  1. Assessment of current supply and distribution of the chiropractic workforce. Government order No. 01-0556 (p), for Health Resources Services Administration-Bureau of Health Professionals. September 24, 2002.
  2. California Board of Chiropractic Examiners. In: Sunset review report [submitted to the Joint Legislative Review Committee]. Sacramento (CA): Office of Administrative Hearing; 1998;p. 33
  3. California Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Sunset review report [submitted to the Joint Legislative Review Committee]. Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1. September 2001. p. 19.
  4. California Administrative Procedures Act. Administrative Adjudication. July 1, 1997.
  5. Morrison J, Wickersham P. Physicians disciplined by a state medical board. JAMA. 1998;279:1889–1893
  6. American Medical Association. In: Directory of physicians in the United States. 35th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association; 1996;
  7. Medical Board of California. 1996-97 annual report. Sacramento (CA): Medical Board of California, 1997.
  8. Clay S, Conatser R. Characteristics of physicians disciplined by the State Medical Board of Ohio. J Am Osetopath Assoc. 2003;103:81–88
  9. Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Occupational analysis survey for doctor of chiropractic. Sacramento (CA): Cooperative Personal Services; October 1993. p. 128.
  10. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. In: Job analysis of chiropractic. Greeley (CO): National Board of Chiropractic Examiners; 2000;p. 62
  11. Gallegos KV, Browne CH, Veit FW, Talbot GD. Addiction in anesthesiologists; drug access and patterns of substance abuse. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1988;14:116–122
  12. Taragin MI, Wilczek AP, Karns E, Trout R, Carson JL. Physician demographics and the risk of medical malpractice. Am J Med. 1992;93:537–542
  13. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277:553–559
  14. Searight HR, Campbell J. Physician-patient sexual contact: ethical and legal issues and clinical guidelines. Fam Pract. 1993;36:647–653
  15. Dehlendorf CE, Wolfe SM. Physicians disciplined for sex-related offenses. JAMA. 1998;279:1883–1888
  16. Pennington S, Gafner G. Addressing ethical boundaries among nurses. Nurs Manage. 1993;24:36–39
  17. Kristof K. California leads nation in number of fraud complaints. Los Angeles Times. January 23, 2003;sect C:1 (col. 1).
  18. Editorial staff. Does the media treat chiropractic fairly? Results of an informal survey. Dyn Chiropr. 2003;21(7):53

PII: S0161-4754(04)00131-9

doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.06.006

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 27, Issue 7 , Pages 472-477 , September 2004

Article Tools