March 2006

see also: WCA files second complaint against Craw in Calif. and Complaint against Maggie Craw, DC

DACBR describes Craw encounter

NOTE: The following letter, addressed to the Executive Committee of the American Chiropractic College of Radiology and posted on the ACCR's website www.dacbr.com/2005_workshop/Reports/CA%20radiologist%20problems.pdf, describes another experience with Dr. Craw.)

Dear ACCR Executive Committee,

I recently received a letter from a defense attorney in a Work Comp case in which I read some imaging for the plaintiff's primary care chiropractor. He notes that my services as a "radiologist" do NOT appear to be within the scope of practice pursuant to Section 302 of the Laws & Regulations Relating to the Practice of Chiropractic in the State of California. He also requests any information I have regarding the ACBR being recognized by the Chiropractic Board of California.

I thought "no problem," I'll just call Maggie Craw, DC, DACBR at the California Board and get the information this attorney is requesting in writing. To my absolute aghast, Maggie explained that this attorney was absolutely correct in stating that practicing as a "radiologist" is indeed NOT within our scope of practice AND that the ACBR is not officially recognized by the California Board.

Furthermore, she faxed me an August 26, 1976 California Attorney General opinion (Vol. 59, p.422) stating that:

"In the face of these extensive authorities, no basis, legal or otherwise, appears to exist upon which to extend the scope of the chiropractic practice. Thus, such practice continues to be limited to that which is stated in the Crees opinion. By virtue of this definition of the 'art' which a chiropractor is licensed to practice, it appears clear that the 'art' and practice necessarily involved in the specialized medical fields of neurology, cardiology, pediatrics, dermatology, syphilology, endocrinology, psychiatry, gynecology, obstetrics, orthopedics, ophthamology, and roentgenology are outside the scope of the practice of chiropractic, and may NOT be practiced."

Maggie went on to inform me that she has been aware of these facts for a period of time, but the Board is just too busy putting out bigger fires. She also added that we, as chiropractic radiologists, in essence raise the standard of care in our profession with our services. Given these circumstances, coupled with the fact that this had not seriously come up before the Board in any concrete manner until just recently (with me and one other individual), she elected to "sit on it" and "not make waves."

Though I fully understand, respect, and appreciate Dr. Craw's handling of this situation (for obvious reasons), I feel that we as a College of Radiology under the leadership of our Executive Committee might want to take a closer look at this situation. The way our scope of practice is written & legally interpreted in California (and maybe in other states as well), literally any attorney (or allopathic medical practitioner for that matter!) could press the issue the we as chiropractic radiologists are essentially illegally practicing a "medical specialty" without a license and/or proper credentialing. At the very least, our billing for personal injury, workman's comp., or insurance cases could be thrown out indiscriminately as a matter of legal & common practice, and at the most we could lose all practical privileges of being radiological consultants and possibly be prosecuted under the current interpretation of our scope of practice.

Sorry for the length, but I think this is fairly important. I really appreciate your time & consideration on this matter.

Sincerely,

Steven L. Weiner, DC, DACBR