In a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has reached a verdict in the case of Keita Vanterpool v. Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards. After a thorough trial, presided over by Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, the jury has rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB). 

Case Background 

Keita Vanterpool, a rising figure in the chiropractic community, found herself at the center of a controversy that has exposed the close ties between the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB), the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE), state regulatory boards, and the spherical halo of numerous other organizations that circle the Chiropractic Cartel's center. These organizations are drawn in by the powerful pull of student loan money that circulates among them. 

So "hand in glove" are these organizations that they have been referred to as monopolies operating as a virtual cartel by members of the United States Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). 

Vanterpool was thrown into the briar patch when she was elected Vice President of the FCLB and brought a lawsuit against the FCLB, its Past President Carol J. Winkler, D.C., and another Past President Karlos Boghosian, D.C., alleging racial discrimination after they suspended her from her position at the FCLB. The FCLB denied the accusations of a civil conspiracy to violate Vanterpool's civil rights, which she claimed were perpetuated by Defendants Winkler, Boghosian and the FCLB. 

The scandal spread beyond the FCLB due to the controversial relationships between the FCLB and NBCE, resulting in resignations from the NBCE. More on that below.

Why Did The FCLB Suspend Vanterpool? 

According to publicly available discovery documents, the primary reason given for the vote by the FCLB Board to suspend Vanterpool from her position as Vice President of FCLB was attempt to attend the 2021 Chiropractic Summit group meeting. Despite being told she could not attend, Vanterpool contacted the Summit’s Executive Director Lisa Love-Smith to solicit an invitation. 

What is the Chiropractic Summit? 

In the world of chiropractic, a veil of secrecy shrouds a self-selected group of organizations known as the Chiropractic Summit. The Summit website’s url chirosummit.org returns a message indicating that access is forbidden. Interestingly, the FCLB's website lists the Chiropractic Summit and its "Administrator" Lisa Love-Smith, but attempts to email the Summit result in delivery failures and Love Smith who is also the Executive Director of the Michigan Association of Chiropractors (MAC) does not return requests for comment. 

According to the listing on the FCLB website, the goal of the Chiropractic Summit is to address critical issues such as: 

1. National Health Care Reform/Medicare Reform & DoD/VA/PHSC

2. Doctor Practice Satisfaction & Self Esteem

3. Profession-wide collaboration, grassroots mobilization, and self-regulation

4. Reimbursement/Anti-discrimination

5. Public Relations - promoting the chiropractic brand

6. Improved practitioner documentation quality and compliance, particularly within the Medicare system.

The E-mail That Set Things in Motion 

An email exchange dated August 4, 2021, between Dr. Vanterpool and Lisa Love-Smith, produced during the discovery process, revealed that Love-Smith, as Membership and Program Director of the Michigan Association of Chiropractors (MAC), conveyed the Summit's rejection of Vanterpool's request to participate in its meetings. Love-Smith explained that the Summit typically only allows two seats per partner organization and that guest attendance requires a personal invitation and unanimous acceptance by all partners. 

This email exchange highlighted the exclusive nature of the Summit and the tightly controlled access to its meetings. Love-Smith's description of the FCLB as a "partner" of the Summit implied a close affiliation between the two organizations, a connection that became a key piece of evidence in the case. 

The Vote Goes Down

On March 4, 2022, the FCLB Board voted to suspend Dr. Vanterpool from her position as Vice President of the FCLB. There were no minutes taken of this meeting, and according to those in attendance, no board member took any notes except for Dale Atkinson, the General Counsel of the FCLB, who did not turn over his notes until ordered by the judge. 

The reasons provided for the decision to suspend Vanterpool included her attempts to attend the 2021 Chiropractic Summit by reaching out to Love-Smith and seeking an invitation. This action appeared to concern the FCLB, as it underscored Vanterpool's efforts to gain access to this exclusive circle of power within the chiropractic profession. 

Additionally, the FCLB Board cited Vanterpool’s outreach to the FCLB membership in May 2021, both thanking supporters and soliciting committee nominees, as inappropriate. These actions, which are typically responsibilities of FCLB leadership, were used as further justification for her suspension, painting her proactive leadership as overstepping her bounds. 

Vanterpool Replaced 

Robert Daschner served as the Vice President of the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB) and was appointed to the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) by the FCLB, serving on the NBCE Board of Directors since 2022. Daschner has held various leadership positions, including being the Board Chair at the FCLB midyear meeting in 2018 and re-elected at the 2019 Annual Congress. He also served as Treasurer of the FCLB from 2022-2023 and has extensive experience with the Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners and NBCE. 

In the case, Daschner, a white male, replaced Dr. Keita Vanterpool, a black woman, as the NBCE representative following her suspension. This action was part of the broader decision-making process within the FCLB’s executive sessions on March 4 and 5, 2022. Daschner testified during the trial, providing his account of the executive sessions and the rationale behind the decision to suspend Vanterpool. He was present during the crucial executive sessions where the decision to suspend Vanterpool was made, and his involvement in these sessions and his subsequent appointment to the NBCE no doubt played a significant role in the case dynamics. 

The fact that Daschner replaced Vanterpool as the NBCE representative added a layer of complexity to his testimony, highlighting the direct impact of Vanterpool’s suspension on the board’s composition and representation. 

The fact that Vanterpool is a black woman and Daschner is a white male may have played a significant role in the accusations of discrimination. Vanterpool suggested that her suspension might have been influenced by racial and gender biases, pointing to the lack of concrete evidence for her suspension and the differing treatment compared to her white colleagues. Testimonies from other board members, such as Dr. Carol Winkler and Dr. Brian McIntyre, supported Vanterpool’s claims of competent performance and lack of observed impropriety. 

Daschner’s involvement in the Vanterpool vs. FCLB case underscores the complexities of board governance, internal politics, and potential discrimination. His involvement also highlighted potential conflicts of interest and the challenges of maintaining impartial governance within professional boards, especially in the context of accusations of racial and gender discrimination.

Other FCLB Disciplines: A Comparative Analysis to Vanterpool's Case

In the Vanterpool vs. FCLB case, Vanterpool highlighted disparities in how disciplinary actions were applied within the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB). The testimonies and documents reviewed reveal instances of different disciplinary measures taken against other board members, which provide context to Vanterpool's claims of unfair treatment and potential discrimination. 

Cynthia Tays, a board member, received a four-month suspension for actions that included a violation of the Texas state board’s regulations. Notably, Tays was given prior notice of the intent to impose discipline and an opportunity to respond in writing to the charges against her. Unlike Vanterpool, who was suspended without prior notice or an opportunity to respond, Tays was afforded these procedural protections, highlighting a potential disparity in the application of disciplinary processes. 

Dr. Grossman, a former board member, received a reprimand for yelling and cursing at a board member during a meeting. Despite these allegations, which involved inappropriate conduct during official board proceedings, he was only reprimanded. Vanterpool was suspended for attempting to attend the Chiropractic Summit meeting, an action not explicitly prohibited by FCLB bylaws or policies. Grossman’s relatively mild reprimand for more overtly disruptive behavior suggested an inconsistency in the severity of disciplinary actions taken against board members. 

The disciplinary actions taken against Cynthia Tays and Dr. Grossman, compared to those against Dr. Vanterpool, underscored potential inconsistencies in the FCLB’s application of disciplinary measures. These discrepancies seemed to support Vanterpool’s claims of procedural unfairness and potential discrimination, as she received a harsher punishment without the procedural safeguards afforded to others. This disparity, coupled with the racial and gender dynamics highlighted in the case, raised questions about the impartiality and fairness of the FCLB’s disciplinary processes. 

Conflicts of Interest Between FCLB, NBCE & State Boards Reached Boiling Point Due to Vanterpool Case

From allegations of restraint of trade, back room dealing, lawsuits, overpriced and unnecessary exams, ridiculous payments to Directors of over half a million dollars, conflicts of interest, monopoly control within the profession, the arrest of its Executive Director and a host of other complaints and grievances - the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) has been under fire now for a number of years and it came to a head with the Vanterpool case. 

According to resignation letters from four Directors in June 2022, things got so chaotic at NBCE that the NBCE Board had ". . . broke into factions which prevented it from conducting board business". The letters described a situation between NBCE directors so bad that: 

"The factions could not come to terms with how the NBCE’s Mission, Vision, its policies, and the board’s fiduciary responsibilities aligned to support the corporation."

The four Directors that resigned included: 

- Michael Fedorczyk DC

- Jason Young DC

- Kimberly Driggers, JD

- John McGinnis DC

According to the letters, three out of the five members of the Governance Committee resigned. McGinnis' resignation letter highlighted the turmoil: 

"Our Board Policy Manual is not an a la cart menu. We don't have the luxury to pick and choose. My fiduciary responsibilities prevent me from looking the other way to what is in violation of our policies. The Board can no longer pretend that our governance and policies don't matter." 

The tumult engulfing the NBCE had apparently been brewing for over a month involving hours of meetings, opinions from four attorneys, and two crisis management companies, yet the NBCE Board still couldn’t get its act together. Fedorczyk stated: 

". . . during five weeks and after hours of meetings with this Board, after four lawyers’ opinions, two crisis management company’s opinions, excessive explanations of the clear and unambiguous NBCE Policy language, and review of the fiduciary responsibilities of being on a Board, those Board members have continued to refuse to take a voluntary leave of absence, placing the NBCE and individual board members serving on the Board, at financial and reputational risk by continuing to serve." 

That latest scandal involving the profession's only testing company, which has a monopoly on the testing of students required for licensure, was prompted by Vanterpool’s discrimination lawsuit in May 2022. 

Boghosian and Winkler were members of the FCLB and NBCE Board of Directors. While the story of alleged discrimination told through the lawsuit was upsetting enough, the other upsetting news revealed in the lawsuit cuts to the heart of the unbridled control and monopoly power that these two "non-profit" private, corporations actually hold within chiropractic. 

The relationship between the FCLB and NBCE is based on power, money, and control. Chiropractors who wish to be "leaders" within the profession vie for prestigious positions on both of these organizations with individuals bouncing back and forth between them for years on end. Patience and the willingness to do their bidding eventually results in a seat at the big table where the big bucks and the big decisions are made. Look no further than the NBCE's publicly available tax returns and it’s easy to see what's going on. 

According to the letters of resignation that circulated through the profession: 

". . . because of the lawsuit, the remaining directors notified Dr. Boghosian, Dr. Winkler, and Dr. Bob Daschner (another member of the NBCE and FCLB Board of Directors), in general session that a conflict of interest exists and they would be recused of participating in any discussion on the matter. The conflicted Directors were also asked to take a voluntary leave of absence by other Directors until the matter was resolved. Drs. Boghosian, Winkler, and Daschner refused stating that they did not believe a conflict of interest exists." 

McGinnis, before resigning, asked himself: 

"Can I fix this Board in its current state? Regrettably, at this time, the answer is no." 

In closing his letter of resignation, McGinnis summarized the problems plaguing the NBCE stating: 

"With our history of lawsuits, previous board members' removal and colorful leaders of the past, real or imagined, the Board is developing a reputation of lax ethical standards. Inaction only helps support these suspicions." 

So bad are the concerns about conflicts of interest and the related legalities that in her letter of resignation attorney Kimberly Driggers, JD stated: 

"The NBCE Board elected me in 2019 as the first non-chiropractor and only seventh woman on the NBCE Board of the 85 who served since 1963, for unique skill sets the Board claimed to desire: Over 25 years of contribution to chiropractic through my litigation practice in representing chiropractors and patients for their denials of insurance benefits; and as General Counsel to the Florida Chiropractic Association with over a decade in chiropractic association experience. While the work done on this Board has been personally and professionally rewarding, the purpose for which I was elected from the vantage point of a lawyer is no longer considered or valued by the majority of its members." 

In his letter of resignation Jason Young DC stated: 

"I am only the second black person to be elected to this board over about six decades." He goes on to describe the: 

". . . ad nauseum explanations of the clear and unambiguous NBCE Policy language, and multiple reviews of the fiduciary responsibilities of Board members. . . '

Young described multiple failed motions by the board who he said was taking a "passive approach" out of fear that action would "constitute a presumption of guilt".

He closed his letter stating: ". . . this board has either eliminated or alienated all of its black membership within the period of four months."

In addition to allegations of discrimination, the Vanterpool lawsuit also laid out the sordid and supposedly unwritten rules of ascension and entitlement within the Chiropractic Cartel. Never have these political machinations been so publicly displayed and openly admitted as it has been in this legal proceeding. 

Vanterpool's suit lays out the questionable legal relationships between state chiropractic regulatory boards, the FCLB, and NBCE. It amounts to an admission of the good ole' boys network that runs the chiropractic profession and has done so for decades using federally backed student loan money. 

Vanterpool's lawsuit connected the dots for anyone willing to read it. 

The FCLB is not a government agency though it acts like one through its questionable legal relationships with state regulatory and licensing boards. These state boards are controlled by Active Market Players who vote to pick who among them get to ascend as "Delegates" to the FCLB and participate in the NBCE. Both are key positions in the control of the chiropractic hierarchy. 

Then, through the incestuous relationships created between the state boards, FCLB, and NBCE, these Active Market Players, with the blessing of their comrades on the state boards, then work through the FCLB and NBCE to create and implement policies that affect the entire chiropractic profession. These policies are at times at odds with the way certain factions within chiropractic actually practice and are used to get them in line with the direction of the Chiropractic Cartel. 

More NBCE Turmoil and Leadership Issues Ensue 

Following the NBCE resignation, four former officers of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) sent a letter to all NBCE Delegates urging them to call for a Special Meeting of the NBCE Board to address what they described as ". . . very serious and toxic leadership issues within the Board of Directors." The letter was signed by: 

- Steven Conway DC, Esq. - Past Vice President, Secretary of the NBCE

- Salvatore LaRusso DC - Past President, Treasurer of the NBCE

- John Nab DC - Past Treasurer of the NBCE

- Daniel Cote DC - Past President, Secretary of the NBCE

Conway and Cote were also witnesses who testified in the Vanterpool case.

The letter highlighted the inextricably intertwined relationships between the NBCE and FCLB, raising concerns about their autonomy and the impact on their functionality. The lawsuit filed by Vanterpool alleging discrimination brought these relationships to light, revealing the questionable legal connections and the flow of federally backed student loan money between these organizations. The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) described a "Cartel" operating within the chiropractic profession, exerting monopoly control over its educational, licensing, and regulatory aspects. 

The former NBCE officers' letter urged Delegates to take action to address the turmoil, including: 

- Removal of any Director(s) that have violated their fiduciary responsibilities to the NBCE.

- Elect new District Directors that will uphold the ethics and fiduciary responsibilities of the Board.

- Develop new bylaws to protect the integrity of the NBCE.

The letter also called for hiring an independent firm to investigate the issues, despite reports that multiple outside attorneys and consultants had already been involved. The actions suggested by the former officers signaled an attempt at a coup within the NBCE to address the serious and toxic leadership issues they perceived. 

Jury's Findings 

The jury was tasked with answering key questions central to the case. Here are the critical points from the jury's findings: 

- Existence of a Contract: The jury found that no contract existed between Keita Vanterpool and the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards.

- Intentional Deprivation of Rights: The jury also determined that the FCLB did not intentionally deprive Vanterpool of any right or benefit, including her membership on the board of directors.

Given these findings, the jury concluded in favor of the defendant, FCLB. 

Final Judgment 

In line with the jury's verdict, the court entered a final judgment on July 12, 2024. The judgment formally states that the decision is in favor of the FCLB and against Keita Vanterpool. As the prevailing party, the FCLB is awarded costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court. 

Case Analysis

This case highlights the complexities involved in organizational governance and the legal intricacies of contractual relationships within professional boards. The testimonies provided a broad view of the internal dynamics and disputes that can arise in such settings. 

Key Takeaways: 

1. Contractual Clarity: One of the significant aspects of the case was the determination that no formal contract existed between Vanterpool and the FCLB. This underscores the importance of clear, written agreements in professional and organizational relationships to avoid similar disputes.  

2. Burden of Proof: Vanterpool's inability to demonstrate intentional deprivation of rights or benefits further emphasizes the high burden of proof required in civil cases involving allegations of intentional wrongdoing. 

3. Professional Disputes: The case serves as a reminder of the potential for professional disputes to escalate into legal battles, highlighting the need for robust conflict resolution mechanisms within professional organizations. 

4. Inter-organizational Relationships: The intricate and questionable legal and ethical relationships between the FCLB, NBCE, and state chiropractic regulatory boards illustrate the interconnected nature of chiropractic governance. Ensuring transparency and clear communication within and between these organizations is crucial to maintaining trust and effective regulation. 

5. Racial Discrimination Allegations: Although Vanterpool alleged racial discrimination, the jury's decision indicates the challenges in proving such claims in court. This aspect of the case highlights the importance of clear, objective evidence in discrimination lawsuits. 

6. Secretive Practices: The case sheds light on the secretive nature of the Chiropractic Summit and the influence it holds within the chiropractic profession. The exclusive and opaque nature of these gatherings raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the organizations involved and potential restraint of trade issues. 

7. NBCE Leadership Issues: The turmoil within the NBCE, as highlighted by the letter from former officers, underscores the serious and toxic leadership issues affecting the organization. The revelations about the close ties between the NBCE and FCLB, and their impact on the profession, further complicate the governance of chiropractic licensing and regulation. 

8. Ethical Concerns: The case brought to light the questionable ethical practices within the FCLB and NBCE, particularly regarding conflicts of interest and the flow of student loan money. These issues call for a reassessment of governance practices to ensure accountability and integrity within the chiropractic profession. 

Understanding the Implications of the Absence of a Contract

The jury in the Vanterpool vs. FCLB case concluded that no contract existed between Dr. Keita Vanterpool and the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards (FCLB). This decision had significant legal implications and affected various aspects of the case, including procedural fairness, the application of bylaws, and the claims of discrimination. 

Legal Issues Related to the Jury's Decision 

1. Employment and Membership Status: 

Without a formal contract, the nature of Vanterpool's role within the FCLB was legally ambiguous. Contracts typically define the terms of employment, including duties, responsibilities, and grounds for termination or suspension. The lack of a contract meant that there was no clear legal framework governing Vanterpool's relationship with the FCLB, making it challenging to assess the legitimacy of her suspension. 

2. Procedural Fairness: 

A contract often includes specific procedures for addressing grievances and disciplinary actions. In the absence of such a contract, the procedural fairness of Vanterpool's suspension came into question. The FCLB's bylaws and policies served as the primary guidelines, but these may not have provided the same level of protection and clarity as a formal contract would. This absence potentially undermined Vanterpool's ability to contest her suspension on procedural grounds. 

3. Application of Bylaws and Policies: 

The jury's decision highlighted the reliance on organizational bylaws and policies to govern the actions and decisions within the FCLB. While these bylaws and policies are crucial, they may not have the same legal enforceability as a contract. This reliance placed greater scrutiny on whether the FCLB adhered to its own rules and whether those rules were applied consistently and fairly. 

4. Claims of Discrimination: 

Vanterpool's claims of discrimination were complicated by the absence of a contract. A contract might have included specific anti-discrimination clauses and outlined procedures for addressing such claims. Without this, Vanterpool had to rely on broader legal principles and the FCLB's bylaws to argue her case. The lack of a contract made it more difficult to demonstrate that her suspension was discriminatory, as there was no contractual standard against which to measure the FCLB's actions. 

5. Burden of Proof: 

The absence of a contract shifted the burden of proof in significant ways. Vanterpool had to prove that her suspension was unjust and discriminatory based on the FCLB's internal rules rather than on contractual obligations. This likely required a more substantial demonstration of inconsistent application of bylaws and potential biases within the FCLB's decision-making process. 

Impact on Different Aspects of the Case 

Procedural Deficiencies: 

The lack of a contract meant that procedural deficiencies in Vanterpool's suspension were scrutinized against the FCLB's bylaws. Testimonies from various board members, including Dr. Carol Winkler and Dr. Brian McIntyre, indicated inconsistencies in how these bylaws were applied. The absence of a contract made it harder to argue that established procedural safeguards were violated, as the bylaws were the sole reference point. 

Comparative Disciplinary Actions: 

The comparison of disciplinary actions against other board members, such as Cynthia Tays and Dr. Grossman, was a critical aspect of Vanterpool's case. The lack of a contract meant that these comparisons had to be made solely based on the FCLB's bylaws and the testimonies of board members. The disparities in how these bylaws were enforced became a central argument for Vanterpool, underscoring potential biases and unfair treatment. 

Judicial Review: 

The court's review of the case was influenced by the absence of a contract, focusing on whether the FCLB's actions were arbitrary or capricious based on its bylaws. The jury had to determine if the suspension was justified within the context of these internal rules rather than a broader contractual framework. This focus potentially limited the scope of judicial review to the specific actions and decisions taken by the FCLB. 

The jury's decision that no contract existed between Vanterpool and the FCLB significantly influenced the legal landscape of the case. It highlighted the reliance on organizational bylaws and policies, raised questions about procedural fairness, and complicated the claims of discrimination. The absence of a contract underscored the importance of clear and enforceable agreements within professional organizations to ensure fair and transparent governance. 

As the dust settles on this case, in addition to unveiling the questionable legal and ethical relationships between to private corporations that control chiropractic education and licensing, it also serves as a learning point for chiropractors serving on boards and organizations alike, emphasizing the need for clear contracts, proactive dispute resolution strategies, and transparent governance to mitigate the risks of litigation. 

Conclusion 

The verdict in Vanterpool v. Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards brings closure to a contentious dispute, reinforcing the principles of contractual law and the high burden of proof required in civil litigation. It also provides a critical reminder of the importance of clear, formal agreements in professional settings to avoid similar disputes in the future. The case further underscores the need for transparency and effective communication within the complex network of chiropractic organizations to prevent and resolve conflicts efficiently. Additionally, it highlights the ongoing challenges in addressing and proving allegations of racial discrimination in professional environments and the need for greater transparency in the operations of influential bodies like the Chiropractic Summit. The leadership issues within the NBCE and its relationship with the FCLB add another layer of complexity, calling for a reassessment of governance practices in the chiropractic profession.