Vanterpool vs. FCLB Trial: Day Three - Boghosian Takes the Stand

Thursday, July 11, 2024 - 14:13 News Analysis

Testimonies Highlight Leadership Disputes, Policy Ambiguities and Continued focus on the Chiropractic Summit

The third day of the Vanterpool vs. FCLB trial provided a deeper insight into the ongoing legal battle, with key testimonies revealing contradictions within the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB) and raising significant questions from jurors. This day’s proceedings focused on the testimonies of Dr. Steven Conway, Dr. Keita Vanterpool, Dale Atkinson, Dr. Karlos Boghasian, Dr. Jason Young, and Dr. Carol Winkler.

Key Witnesses and Testimonies

Dr. Steven Conway

Dr. Steven Conway, testifying via video teleconference, was one of four former officers of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) who sent a letter to NBCE delegates urging a special meeting to address toxic leadership issues within the NBCE Board following the filing of the FCLB lawsuit and the resignations of key NBCE Directors over the leadership of Karlo Boghosian.

Conway's email stated in part:

"The recent serious allegations involving officers of the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Board (FCLB) and the simultaneous and unprecedented resignations of four ethical and upstanding directors of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) has created an ethical tipping point that the undersigned former directors and officers of the NBCE strongly believe can no longer be ignored."

Conway’s series of emails to NBCE Delegates back in August of 2022 was meant to derail Boghosian's attempts to stop the bleeding at the NBCE over the FCLB lawsuit. The emails underscored the ongoing disputes and the questionable legal relationships between the NBCE and FCLB, which were brought to light due to Vanterpool's lawsuit alleging discrimination. The emails highlighted the stalemate between the NBCE and FCLB and pointed to Karlos Boghosian as a central figure in the leadership issues.

Dr. Keita Vanterpool

Dr. Keita Vanterpool was recalled to the stand, continuing her direct examination by Clarence Gamble. Her testimony focused on her experiences with the FCLB and the impact of her suspension. The cross-examination by Andrew Ringel delved into the specifics of her actions and the board’s responses. Juror questions to Vanterpool revealed an ongoing focus and intrigue about the Chiropractic Summit and the nature of her interactions with other board members:

Do you feel your run for FCLB president and ongoing litigation was a conflict of interest?
Why did you want to run for President of an organization you were taking legal action against?
Did the FCLB have to issue or send an apology letter to the Chiropractic Summit team for you contacting them?
Did you at any point yell at other board members or point fingers at them pointing out things they did wrong?
Have any other board members acted this way during one of the meetings?
Did Carol Winkler ever come to you to discuss in person, one on one, her feelings about your May 9, 2021 thank you letter and the Chiropractic Summit?
Did Dr. Winkler share with you that she felt you went behind her back? If so, what kind of things did she share with you regarding how she felt?
It has been stated that you had a pattern of going around proper channels to achieve what you wanted. Can you speak to the veracity of this statement?

Dale Atkinson

Dale Atkinson, legal counsel to the FCLB, provided crucial testimony. His notes from the executive sessions were central to the case, yet his lack of specificity in responding to Vanterpool’s inquiries about her suspension raised questions. Jurors had lots of questions for Atkinson and were particularly interested in the documentation and policy enforcement:

Under what circumstances can an FCLB member speak to or make inquiries of an outside party?
Please help us better understand why you didn’t at least summarize the "lengthy conversations" to officially document specific instances of violating "basic fiduciary responsibilities". In my personal experience with legal documentation: If it isn't written, it didn’t happen.
You stated that the reason you did not specify how Dr. Vanterpool had not met fiduciary responsibilities was because it was "discussed at the meeting" she was in. However, it is obvious that it was not clear to Dr. Vanterpool, or she would not have asked you for clarification in her email to you. Don’t you think it was your responsibility to outline that to her?
What is the criteria for determining length of suspensions?
While the board is able to apply "lesser sanctions" than removal, presumably the criteria for doing so is also lesser. What is that criteria?
Is it unusual for a BOD member or any FCLB member to seek a guest invitation to the Chiropractic Summit?
Is such activity expressly forbidden, or must such requests go through the FCLB President?
Do the FCLB Policies and Bylaws include a section on how frequently they should be reviewed and/or revised? What is that frequency?

Atkinson and the Discovery Dispute

At the heart of this legal wrangle involving Atkinson are the notes recorded by him during closed-door Executive Sessions that led to the suspension of Vanterpool from her position as Vice President and a member of the Board of FCLB. Vanterpool contended that his notes are essential to understanding the basis for her suspension, while the FCLB Boghosian and Winkler maintained that the notes were protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Shockingly, according to other documents in the case, no minutes or other notes were taken of this crucial meeting by anyone at the FCLB. This made the notes taken by Atkinson crucial in understanding what went on in the room that led to Vanterpool's suspension. The aggressive efforts to keep Atkinson's notes a secret suggested they contained a smoking gun.

Vanterpool argued that Atkinson's privilege log, which was provided after a considerable delay, should constitute a waiver of any privilege claim. They asserted that the work product doctrine should not apply as litigation was not anticipated at the time the notes were taken. Vanterpool further claimed that undue hardship would befall her without access to these notes, given the lack of any other record of the Executive Sessions. Finally, they argued that the attorney-client privilege should not protect the notes, as they contain underlying facts relevant to Vanterpool's suspension.

On the other side of the dispute, the FCLB, Boghosian and Winkler asserted that the plaintiff's request for Mr. Atkinson's notes came after the deadline for such requests had passed, rendering it belated. They maintain that the notes are protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, as they reflect the attorney's mental impressions and legal analysis. The defendants also argued that sufficient discovery opportunities had already been provided to the plaintiff through depositions of various board members and participants, making the notes unnecessary.

The judge ordered that Atkinson's notes be turned over under Level 2 restriction, which limits access to the filing party and the Court.

Dr. Karlos Boghasian

Dr. Karlos Boghasian’s previous deposition testimony revealed inconsistencies within the FCLB’s defense. Despite his leadership role, he demonstrated a troubling lack of recall regarding specific reasons for Vanterpool’s suspension. His testimony, combined with previous revelations of toxic leadership, cast doubt on the board's decision-making integrity.

According to Vanterpool's opposition to FCLB's Motion for Summary Judgement Defendant Boghosian, deposed on July 24, 2023, testified that Plaintiff supported the mission of Defendant FCLB in her capacity as vice president and was unaware of Plaintiff failing to keep the board fully informed or acting improperly.

Boghosian confirmed that, according to section 2.13 of Defendant FCLB’s policies and procedures, Plaintiff’s alleged impropriety in seeking to attend the Chiropractic Summit in the summer of 2021 was not brought up at the next regularly scheduled executive session but months later in March 2022.

Vanterpool was not given any notice of intent to seek disciplinary action, unlike Cynthia Tays, who had been given notice prior to her four-month suspension. Plaintiff was also not given an opportunity to respond in writing to the charges that resulted in her suspension. No effort to impose discipline was made against Plaintiff at the November 6, 2021 executive session, which was after she attempted to attend the Chiropractic Summit.

Dr. Jason Young

Dr. Jason Young, who served on both the FCLB and the NBCE and resigned from the NBCE over how the FCLB leadership handled Vanterpool, provided compelling testimony.

Young was one of several of the Board of Directors of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) who abruptly resigned over the FCLB and NBCE actions related to Vanterpool and revealed more insight into the inner workings of the Chiropractic Cartel's two most controversial organizations as they became ever more deeply embroiled in a scandal that brought both organizations to a grinding halt.

Young claimed on his website that: "He is one of the leaders in the chiropractic profession" and that he was appointed the the Oregon Board of Chiropractic.

During that time Young responded to a question posed by Kyle Swanson DC on social media who asked him about the turmoil engulfing the NBCE and FCLB:

"Does this have anything to do with vitalist vs evidence based board members and their control over influencing the direction of the profession, CCE, etc?

Young responded:

"I would guess Dr. Vanterpool has more of a vitalistic outlook than many here. She was educated at Life. However, my personal interaction with her tells me that she is smart, she understands and values evidence. That’s probably the case with everybody who has recently been on the board with some having more vitalistic ideas. Baghosian (sic) was on the Sherman board but was educated at Bridgeport. The mission and vision of the NBCE doesn’t accommodate the testing of principles that aren’t supported by available evidence and taught in all chiropractic colleges."

Young also attacked Defendant Karlos Boghosian who is past president of FCLB and at-large director of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners at the time. Of note - Boghosian is also a sitting member of the Connecticut Board of Chiropractic.

Young stated:

"The issue with the Vanterpool suspension is that SHE wasn’t even told why she was suspended. The lack of transparency is extremely troubling."

Young further stated:

"This has become the M.O. of the accused. Baghosian (sic) FCLB President's win has been described as a blindside. I would describe his NBCE presidential election as a blindside having witnessed it. Opacity of operation is well within their comfort zone."

He goes on:

"I won my At-large election but the biggest surprise was the election of Dr Boghosian to the president of NBCE despite never announcing his intention to run to the whole board. He had become the president of FCLB previously in a similar maneuver."

Young also revealed the questionable legal relationships between the FCLB and the NBCE that involve federally backed student loan money:

"In March NBCE directors were informed that the FCLB had suspended Dr. Vanterpool and she was removed by the FCLB from our board (NBCE bylaws don’t really allow the FCLB to remove anybody from NBCE board unilaterally)."

Young also discusses the "tight" relationship between the FCLB and NBCE, how the NBCE funds the FCLB, pays its rent and how the board members bounce back and forth.

The exchange reveals how these two organizations (FCLB & NBCE) are so inextricably intertwined that neither of them could function independently and these facts brought them to a standstill where the organizations cannot even get a quorum to pass a motion.

Young's rant about his experience came after the FCLB issued a clear threat to its Delegates and "member" boards warning anyone who speaks out - stating its "ill advised" referring to "confidentiality and executive session limitations" imposed on them by their positions.

The FCLB letter stated:

"Broadcasting resignations, referencing sensitive information, disclosing the existence and length of difficult discussions, and soliciting recipients of these letters to engage in continued dialogue with former members of any board is fraught with peril and must be met with caution."

In a poorly executed attempt to separate itself from the incestuous relationship it has with the NBCE the FCLB letter stated:

"FCLB should not and will not interject itself in the policy issues and legal matters of the NBCE. This is especially true in that the NBCE is not a party to the litigation. FCLB will, however, make all efforts to recognize and respect the importance of the relationship between these two vital organizations."

Commenting on the silence from the NBCE Young revealed:

"As of this date there’s isn’t even so much as a public statement from the NBCE as it has taken a passive posture and the strategy (which was never voted on in a motion) appears to be watchful waiting."

In a letter circulated throughout the profession, Steven Conway DC, Esq., Salvatore LaRusso DC, John Nab DC, and Daniel Cote DC called for an "NBCE delegate special meeting request" stating:

The letter from Conway shows just how ominous the incestuous relationships between these two organizations really are with Conway and his cohorts stating:

"The legal opinions appear to indicate that based on the number of resignations and internal conflicts, the current Board of Directors does not have a legal quorum to conduct the business of the NBCE."

According to Young if there are at least 22 signers of the NBCE petition by next week this meeting will be convened "and we will see what happens next."

Young admitted in his social media postings that he has failed the NBCE Board and the profession because he "could not be persuasive enough to convince fellow board members to do what our responsibilities demanded" adding "choosing to look after individuals instead of the NBCE."

Young's cross-examination by Ringel was brief, but juror questions focused on his unique position and the implications for Vanterpool’s representation on the NBCE Board:

Could the FCLB decide they no longer want Dr. Vanterpool representing them and have her removed from the NBCE Board?

Dr. Carol Winkler

Dr. Carol Winkler’s testimony further highlighted the contradictions within the FCLB’s defense. As the FCLB President, she acknowledged no specific prohibition against Vanterpool attending the Chiropractic Summit and struggled to provide concrete evidence supporting Vanterpool’s suspension. Her statements raised questions about the clarity and consistency of the board's policies.

According to Vanterpool's opposition to FCLB's Motion for Summary Judgement Defendant Winkler testified in her deposition that Vanterpool's attendance at the Chiropractic Summit was not a violation of the bylaws or policies/procedures of Defendant FCLB by attending as a guest. She learned that there was no prohibition to keep Vanterpool from attending the Chiropractic Summit as a guest.

Furthermore, she was unaware of Plaintiff failing to conduct herself in accordance with the board’s policies and procedures while at the Chiropractic Summit. During her deposition, Winkler was unable to identify a bylaw, policy, or procedure of the FCLB that Plaintiff violated by seeking to attend the Chiropractic Summit on her own.

Winkler also testified in her deposition that she was unaware of Plaintiff using foul or inappropriate language and confirmed that Plaintiff had not violated any provision of the law. She could not recall how Plaintiff failed to support the mission of the FCLB but believed Plaintiff was being disrespectful in her defense of the allegations brought against her in the March 4, 2023 executive session, which Defendants did not provide notice of. Winkler testified that former board member Grossman yelled at someone and was accused of cursing at the president during a board meeting, but confirmed that Plaintiff did not curse at anyone or get into a verbal argument during the March 4 executive session.

Ongoing Juror Intrigue and Leadership Disputes

The juror questions underscored a continued keen interest in the Chiropractic Summit and the internal conflicts within the FCLB. Conway, Boghosian, and others revealed a fractured leadership, with conflicting accounts and unclear policy enforcement. The intrigue surrounding these issues highlighted the complexities and stakes involved in this trial.

Conclusion

Day three of the Vanterpool vs. FCLB trial was marked by significant revelations and contradictions. The testimonies exposed the internal conflicts and questionable practices within the FCLB, with juror questions adding depth and perspective to the proceedings. As the trial continues, the spotlight remains on the integrity and transparency of the FCLB’s leadership and policies. Stay tuned for further updates on this unfolding legal battle.