 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
This action violates the regulations pertaining to the proper and safe use of diagnostic radiation equipment by doctors of chiropractic and places the public at risk. The unnecessary radiation of small children is another concern. Please see the attached marketing information from the Hollern training manual. When I was in the training sessions one of the students asked Hollern how young should a patient be when screening for scoliosis. His answer was that he was the youngest child in his family and had never been around very many small children and he did not like to be around them. So, his rule was to screen all children from age three up. This had nothing to do with what age group should be screened or clinical judgment (12-16 yoa). His answer was based solely on what was convenient for him and getting new patients. One of the first complaints I heard from my former office staff about their new employer (Stapleton) was how he was x-raying very small children and they “always” had scoliosis. The Hollern CA manual tells the CAs to tell the patients that scoliosis happens to 1 in 10 children. What are the statistical odds of every child who enters a practice being the 1 in 10? Unnecessary exposure to radiation at a young age can have serious consequences. I am not a lawyer but I have been told that the statute of limitations on injury to a child is indefinite. This could have long term negative implications on the chiropractic profession as a whole in Kentucky if law suits are filed over the course of the next several years by parents of these children. At one point in early 2004 just after I quit Kathy Swartley told me that Lisa Finnell said to her that she thought that Stapleton was using the same set of x-rays over and over again to give patient reports because he was telling every patient that their neck was straight. Finally, Hollern started a Radiology business Stat Radiology. This firm was to read all film from the Hollern Training offices and he was putting it into his student contracts that all of the offices had to send their film to Stat for reading. I feel this violates laws against doctors referring to a lab or other facility they have a financial interest in. Initially all film were sent to Stat whether it was necessary or not. Later I heard that cash patient’s film were no longer sent. It is surprising that people paying cash would “never” need radiology consult but people with insurance “always” would. They even bill through Stat for reading all those “free” bait and switch films. They really are not free if they always receive additional films on day two and there is a bill for reading all the films. Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
Download Printable Version Editor's Note: Those doctors who would like more information about this complaint may contact Dr. Miller through ChiroWeb at DrMiller@DCMedia.com. Go to the Acrobat Reader download page by clicking on this logo!
|
|
||||
|
To report inappropriate ads, 
|
