Note that some links will break as pages are moved, websites are abandoned, etc.
If this happens, please try searching for the page in the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org.
“What does this ruling mean?
The Board’s declaration that there is no risk of cervical artery dissection and stroke following manipulation is a finding of fact and not binding on the courts. As is their ruling that informed consent does not require a warning. Under Connecticut law, whether a warning of risk is required is determined by the “reasonable patient” standard, that is, what would a reasonable patient consider important in making his decision whether to undergo a particular procedure. One of the very purposes of the reasonable patient standard is to prevent practitioners from setting low standards and then claiming they’ve abided by their profession’s standard of care. Imagine the chiropractor sued for failure to warn who erroneously thinks he’s been inoculated against malpractice claims by following the Board’s ruling. Surprise!
As a matter of fact, the hearing transcript and videotape are now in the hands of plaintiffs’ personal injury attorneys, who will mine it for useful information. A couple of years ago the American Justice Society (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of American) started a chiropractic interest group (that is, interest in suing chiropractors for personal injury). The section collects and distributes such information for AJS members.
The chiropractors may have won this battle, but they could be losing the war.”
Jann Bellamy, Science Based Medicine (2nd July 2010)