In the ongoing legal battle between Keita Vanterpool and the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB), a web of complexities and contradictions has emerged. As we delve into the roles and testimonies of key figures in this case, it becomes clear that what was presented as a unified defense strategy by the FCLB appears to be anything but cohesive. From Vanterpool's Response to the FCLB's Motion for Summary Judgement, let's dissect the testimonies of Dale Atkinson, Karlos Boghosian, and Carol Winkler and explore how their testimony contradicts the FCLB's defense.

CLICK HERE for Vanterpool's Response

Dale Atkinson's Role and Statements

Dale Atkinson, the legal counsel to the FCLB, took meticulous notes during the executive sessions that led to Keita Vanterpool's suspension. These notes served as crucial records of those proceedings. However, when Vanterpool sought clarification regarding her suspension, Atkinson's response lacked specificity regarding the policy violations. His email response failed to mention Vanterpool's attempt to attend the Chiropractic Summit, a central point of contention. Keep in mind that according to the Discovery Documents - no other minutes or notes of any kind were kept by anyone else of this pivotal meeting.

Karlos Boghosian's Role and Statements

As a member of the FCLB's Board of Directors and serving as its Immediate Past President, Karlos Boghosian held a leadership position within the organization. However, his deposition in the legal proceedings revealed a troubling lack of recall regarding the specific reasons for Vanterpool's suspension. Boghosian testified that he was unaware of any concrete instances of impropriety or policy violations by Vanterpool during her tenure.

Carol Winkler's Role and Statements

Carol Winkler, another prominent FCLB leader who was President at the time, testified that there was no specific prohibition in the FCLB's bylaws or policies against Vanterpool attending the chiropractic summit. Her lack of recall regarding specific bylaws, policies, or procedures violated by Vanterpool raised concerns about the clarity of the justifications for suspension. Winkler couldn't provide concrete evidence supporting Vanterpool's suspension.

These contradictions within the FCLB's own testimonies cast doubt on the legitimacy of Vanterpool's suspension. The lack of specificity, combined with the absence of concrete evidence, raises the question: Were Vanterpool's actions truly a violation of FCLB policy, or was there an underlying motive behind her suspension? Furthermore, the interconnectedness of individuals like Boghosian, who have moved between different chiropractic organizations and state regulatory boards, highlights potential conflicts of interest.

In a case where transparency and fairness are paramount, these contradictions raise red flags. As the legal battle continues, it remains crucial to scrutinize the actions and testimonies of those involved, shedding light on the intricacies of this complex case. The truth, it seems, is still waiting to be fully revealed.

CLICK HERE for more on the Vanterpool case