See Also: CBS lawyer disputes NCMIC claims

Dear Mr. Hansell:

I write in response to your December 18, 2001 letter wherein you request written assurances on behalf of our clients, World Chiropractic Alliance ("WCA") and Chiropractic Benefit Services, Inc. ("CBS"), that they will describe NCMIC's policy provisions accurately in their advertising and other statements.

You may not be aware that in August 1998, NCMIC, through Kent Foreny, an attorney at the law firm of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., accused The Chiropractic Journal and its publisher, Terry A. Rondberg, D.C. (collectively, the "Journal"), of making similar false statements concerning your client. In 1998, Mr. Forney accused the Journal of falsely stating that (1) ". . . NCMIC requires its insureds to comply with the Mercy Conference document," and (2) . . . NCMIC will not cover doctors who treat children who have subluxation-based practices."

In response, on August 13, 1998, the Journal asked NCMIC to provide the kind of proof necessary to disprove the truth of either of these two statement that were characterized as false. In addition, the Journal specifically challenged NCMIC to answer the following questions affirmatively:

*** Does NCMIC support and promote lifetime family wellness care based on the practice objective of diagnosing and correcting vertebral subluxations?

*** Does NCMIC encourage doctors to limit their scope of practice to detecting and correcting vertebral subluxations in newborns, children and adults who are asymptomatic?

*** Will NCMIC vigorously defend doctors who do not offer to diagnose or treat any disease or condition other than vertebral subluxation?

*** Does NCMIC now reject the Mercy Conference Guidelines? To date, NCMIC has not presented any proof to disprove the Journal's statements, nor has it answered the foregoing questions affirmatively. What NCMIC has done is retain different counsel and attempt to intimidate and harass WCA and CBS by falsely accusing them of making misleading statements. Instead, NCMIC should answer the previous questions posed by the Journal, as well the following:

*** Does NCMIC now support vertebral subluxation diagnosis and correction as a reason for care?

*** Does NCMIC now support lifetime wellness care for correction of vertebral subluxation?

*** Does NCMIC support the adjustment of pregnant women and children from birth for the correct vertebral subluxation?

*** Does NCMIC now reject all guidelines similar to Mercy?

In conclusion, WCA and CBS have described NCMIC's policy provisions accurately in their advertising and other statements, and will continue to do so. As you know, truth (even "substantial truth") is a complete defense to any defamation claim. See, e.g., Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 130 Ariz. 475, 636 P.2d 1257 (Ct. App. 1981). Of course, if NCMIC changes its position and answers the foregoing questions affirmatively, WCA and CBS will change their descriptions of NCMIC's policy provisions correspondingly.

I trust this puts the matter behind us. Of course, if you care to review copies of our correspondence on this issue from three and a half years ago, or have any further information to share with my clients, please feel free to call.

Very truly yours,