496 P.3d 1122
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Petitioner Thaddeus Gala, a licensed chiropractor, ran a wellness program (Healthy Living Plan / My Diabetic Solution) marketed at public seminars for conditions like diabetes, fibromyalgia, and neuropathy.
- Seminar attendees completed intake forms and could enroll after a ~30-minute consultation; Gala offered 2–6 month paid plans emphasizing diet, supplements, lifestyle changes, and coached support.
- Day-to-day coaching was provided by unlicensed "health coaches" trained in a seven-week course and supervised indirectly by Gala; coaches did one-on-one weekly calls with participants.
- Three elderly seminar attendees (Patients 1–3, ages 69–82, two with dementia and multiple comorbidities) enrolled, then complained or withdrew; Patient 3 later said she felt pressured and did not consider Gala her doctor.
- The Oregon Chiropractic Board disciplined Gala for unprofessional/dishonorable conduct and gross negligence, finding the HLP was subject to chiropractic standards, Gala repeatedly failed to meet those standards, and he abdicated duties to unlicensed coaches. Gala sought judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gala) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the HLP is governed by the chiropractic standard of care | HLP is wellness/non-chiropractic and not subject to chiropractic standards | HLP was offered as problem-based treatment for specific conditions and thus is chiropractic practice | Board’s finding affirmed; substantial evidence supports applying chiropractic standard |
| Whether Gala engaged in unprofessional or dishonorable conduct | Standards applied are vague and evidence insufficient | Gala violated standards by not adequately reviewing histories, performing exams, making diagnoses, reviewing risks (PARQ), obtaining informed consent, or coordinating with PCPs | Affirmed: board’s six specific violations supported by expert testimony and substantial evidence |
| Whether Gala’s conduct constituted gross negligence | Gala’s conduct does not reach gross negligence | Gala abdicated professional duties to unlicensed coaches, creating substantial risk to vulnerable patients | Affirmed: board’s gross negligence finding supported by evidence of near-total disregard for patient safety |
| Whether Gala could be disciplined for conduct relating to Patient 3 who denied being his patient | Patient 3 did not accept care and thus Gala cannot be disciplined for her | OAR defines "patient" to include anyone examined, treated, or provided chiropractic services; facts showed Gala evaluated and enrolled her | Affirmed: Patient 3 was a patient under the rule; discipline valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruntz-Ferguson v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 310 Or App 618 (explaining that an agency must provide a rational explanation linking factual findings to legal conclusions; "substantial reason" review)
- Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186 (noting that the substantial-reason requirement is part of the substantial-evidence standard of review)