Wilk v. American Medical Association

Last updated

Wilk v. American Medical Association
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Full case name Dr. Chester A. Wilk, D.C., et al v. American Medical Association, et al
ArguedDecember 1, 1988
DecidedFebruary 7, 1990
Citation895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)
Case history
Prior history635 F.2d 1295 (7th Cir. 1981)
719 F.2d 207 (7th Cir. 1983)
671 F. Supp. 1465 (N.D. Ill. 1987)
Subsequent historyRehearing en banc denied, April 25, 1990
Court membership
Judges sitting Harlington Wood Jr., Kenneth Francis Ripple, Daniel Anthony Manion
Case opinions
MajorityManion, joined by Wood, Ripple
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act

Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990), [1] was a federal antitrust suit brought against the American Medical Association (AMA) and 10 co-defendants by chiropractor Chester A. Wilk, DC, and four co-plaintiffs. It resulted in a ruling against the AMA.

Contents

Case history

Pre-trial environment

Until 1983, the AMA held that it was unethical for medical doctors to associate with an "unscientific practitioner", and labeled chiropractic "an unscientific cult". [2]

Before 1980, Principle 3 of the AMA Principles of medical ethics stated: "A physician should practice a method of healing founded on a scientific basis; and he should not voluntarily professionally associate with anyone who violates this principle." In 1980 during a major revision of ethical rules (while the Wilk litigation was in progress), it replaced Principle 3, stating that a physician "shall be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services". Also, up until 1974, the AMA had a Committee on quackery which challenged what it considered to be unscientific forms of healing. Wilk argued that this committee was established specifically to undermine chiropractic.

The first trial

In 1976, Chester Wilk and four other chiropractors sued the AMA, several nationwide healthcare associations, and several physicians for violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs lost at the first trial in 1981, then obtained a new trial on appeal in 1983 because of improper jury instructions and admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence (Wilk v. American Medical Association, 735 F.2d 217, 7th Cir. 1983).

The second trial

In the second trial case the AMA had the burden of proof, needing to establish the validity of the boycott. The court recognized a "patient care defense", but imposed a difficult burden. The defendants had to show their concern could not have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition. So Wilk and later cases greatly limit the use of "quality of care" defense in boycott cases.

Just before the second trial, the plaintiffs dropped their demand for damages and sought only an injunction. Therefore, the resulting trial in May and June 1987 was a bench trial in which Judge Susan Getzendanner personally heard the evidence and made factual findings.

Judge's findings in the second trial

On September 25, 1987, Getzendanner issued her opinion that the AMA had violated Section 1, but not 2, of the Sherman Act, and that it had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession". (Wilk v. American Medical Association, 671 F. Supp. 1465, N.D. Ill. 1987). She further stated that the "AMA had entered into a long history of illegal behavior". She then issued a permanent injunction against the AMA under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to prevent such future behavior. However, she exonerated the two other remaining defendants, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals and the American College of Physicians, and dismissed them from the case.

Judge Getzendanner also went out of her way to make clear what she was not doing:

The plaintiffs clearly want more from the court. They want a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid, efficacious, even scientific health care service. I believe that the answer to that question can only be provided by a well designed, controlled, scientific study ... No such study has ever been done. In the absence of such a study, the court is left to decide the issue on the basis of largely anecdotal evidence. I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.

However, Judge Getzendanner went on:

The plaintiffs, however, point out that the anecdotal evidence in the record favors chiropractors. The patients who testified were helped by chiropractors and not by medical physicians. Per Freitag, a medical physician who associates with chiropractors, has observed that patients in one hospital who receive chiropractic treatment are released sooner than patients in another hospital in which he is on staff which does not allow chiropractors. John McMillan Mennell testified in favor of chiropractic. Even the defendants' economic witness, Mr. Lynk, assumed that chiropractors outperformed medical physicians in the treatment of certain conditions and he believed that was a reasonable assumption.

The defendants have offered some evidence as to the unscientific nature of chiropractic. The study of how the five original named plaintiffs diagnosed and actually treated patients with common symptoms was particularly impressive. This study demonstrated that the plaintiffs do not use common methods in treating common symptoms and that the treatment of patients appears to be undertaken on an ad hoc rather than on a scientific basis. And there was evidence of the use of cranial adjustments to cure cerebral palsy and other equally alarming practices by some chiropractors.

I do not minimize the negative evidence. But most of the defense witnesses, surprisingly, appeared to be testifying for the plaintiffs. Taking into account all of the evidence, I conclude only that the AMA has failed to meet its burden on the issue of whether its concern for the scientific method in support of the boycott of the entire chiropractic profession was objectively reasonable throughout the entire period of the boycott. This finding is not and should not be construed as a judicial endorsement of chiropractic.

The next element of the patient care defense is whether the AMA's concern about scientific method has been the dominant motivating factor in the defendants' promulgation of Principle 3 in the conduct undertaken and intended to implement Principle 3. The AMA has carried its burden on this issue. While there is some evidence that the Committee on Quackery and the AMA were motivated by economic concerns – there are too many references in the record to chiropractors as competitors to ignore – I am persuaded that the dominant factor was patient care and the AMA's subjective belief that chiropractic was not in the best interests of patients.

She concluded that the AMA had been too restrictive in its campaign:

The final question is whether this concern for scientific method in patient care could have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition. It would be a difficult task to persuade a court that a boycott and conspiracy designed to contain and eliminate a profession that was licensed in all fifty states at the time the Committee on Quackery disbanded was the only way to satisfy the AMA's concern for the use of scientific method in patient care. The AMA presented no evidence that a public education approach or any other less restrictive approach was beyond the ability or resources of the AMA or had been tried and failed. The AMA obviously was not successful in defeating the licensing of chiropractic on a state by state basis, but that failure does not mean that they had to resort to the highly restrictive means of the boycott. The AMA and other medical societies have managed to change America's health-related conduct by what appears to be good public relations work and there has been no proof that a similar campaign would not have been at least as effective as the boycott in educating consumers about chiropractic and the AMA's concern for scientific method. Based on these findings, I conclude that the AMA has failed to carry its burden of persuasion on the patient care defense. [2]

Following the second trial

Both sides cross-appealed, and the district court's decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals on February 7, 1990 (Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352, 7th Cir. 1990). [3] The AMA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court three times, but each time the Court denied certiorari (on June 11, August 13, and November 26, 1990). [4]

The AMA eliminated Principle 3 in 1980 during a major revision of ethical rules (while the Wilk litigation was in progress). Its replacement stated that a physician "shall be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical services". Thus, the AMA now permits medical doctors to refer patients to doctors of chiropractic for such manipulative therapy if the medical doctor believes it is in the best interests of the patients.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chiropractic</span> Form of pseudoscientific alternative medicine

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially of the spine. It is based on several pseudoscientific ideas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vertebral subluxation</span> Chiropractic concept

In chiropractic, a vertebral subluxation means pressure on nerves, abnormal functions creating a lesion in some portion of the body, either in its action or makeup. Chiropractors claim subluxations are not necessarily visible on X-rays.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Medical Association</span> Organization

The American Medical Association (AMA) is an American professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students. Founded in 1847, it is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Membership was 271,660 in 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of alternative medicine</span>

The history of alternative medicine covers the history of a group of diverse medical practices that were collectively promoted as "alternative medicine" beginning in the 1970s, to the collection of individual histories of members of that group, or to the history of western medical practices that were labeled "irregular practices" by the western medical establishment. It includes the histories of complementary medicine and of integrative medicine. "Alternative medicine" is a loosely defined and very diverse set of products, practices, and theories that are perceived by its users to have the healing effects of medicine, but do not originate from evidence gathered using the scientific method, are not part of biomedicine, or are contradicted by scientific evidence or established science. "Biomedicine" is that part of medical science that applies principles of anatomy, physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, and other natural sciences to clinical practice, using scientific methods to establish the effectiveness of that practice.

Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases involving medical error. Claims of medical malpractice, when pursued in US courts, are processed as civil torts. Sometimes an act of medical malpractice will also constitute a criminal act, as in the case of the death of Michael Jackson.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

The National Association for Chiropractic Medicine(NACM) was a minority chiropractic association founded in 1984 that described itself as a "consumer advocacy association of chiropractors". It openly rejected some of the more controversial aspects of chiropractic, including a basic concept of chiropractic, vertebral subluxations as the cause of all diseases. It also sought to "reform the chiropractic profession away from a philosophical scope of practice and towards an applied science scope of practice." It stated that it was "dedicated to bringing the scientific based practice of chiropractic into mainstream medicine" and that its members "confine their scope of practice to scientific parameters and seek to make legitimate the utilization of professional manipulative procedures in mainstream health care delivery." "While the NACM is focused on furthering the profession, its primary focus is on the rights and safety of the consumers." The NACM was the object of much controversy and criticism from the rest of the profession. It quietly dropped out of sight and its demise apparently occurred sometime between May 30, 2008 and March 6, 2010.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of chiropractic</span>

The history of chiropractic began in 1895 when Daniel David Palmer of Iowa performed the first chiropractic adjustment on a partially deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard. While Lillard was working without his shirt on in Palmer's office, Lillard bent over to empty the trash can. Palmer noticed that Lillard had a vertebra out of position. He asked Lillard what happened, and Lillard replied, "I moved the wrong way, and I heard a 'pop' in my back, and that's when I lost my hearing." Palmer, who was also involved in many other natural healing philosophies, had Lillard lie face down on the floor and proceeded with the adjustment. The next day, Lillard told Palmer, "I can hear that rackets on the streets." This experience led Palmer to open a school of chiropractic two years later. Rev. Samuel H. Weed coined the word "chiropractic" by combining the Greek words cheiro (hand) and praktikos.

The Toftness Radiation Detector is an instrument used by some chiropractors. It was patented by Irwing N. Toftness in 1971, and was banned from use in the United States in 1982. Toftness claimed that it detected electromagnetic radiation emanating from vertebral subluxations. The device consisted of a plastic cylinder with a series of plastic lenses inside, as well as a clear plastic "detection plate". A patient would rub their finger against the detection plate while the device was held close to an area of their body, and report the degree of perceived resistance against the movement of their fingers. An increase in perceived resistance would indicate which area of the body required chiropractic manipulation.

Throughout its history, chiropractic has been the subject of internal and external controversy and criticism. According to magnetic healer Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, "vertebral subluxation" was the sole cause of all diseases and manipulation was the cure for all disease. A 2003 profession-wide survey found "most chiropractors still hold views of Innate Intelligence and of the cause and cure of disease consistent with those of the Palmers". A critical evaluation stated "Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today." Chiropractors, including D.D. Palmer, were jailed for practicing medicine without a license. D.D. Palmer considered establishing chiropractic as a religion to resolve this problem. For most of its existence, chiropractic has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas such as vertebral subluxation.

Sports chiropractic is a specialty of chiropractic. It generally requires post-graduate coursework and a certification or diplomate status granted by a credentialing agency recognized in a practitioner's region.

Osteomyology is a multi-disciplined form of alternative medicine found almost exclusively in the United Kingdom and is loosely based on aggregated ideas from other manipulation therapies, principally chiropractic and osteopathy. It is a results-based physical therapy tailored specifically to the needs of the individual patient. Osteomyologists have been trained in osteopathy and chiropractic, but do not require to be regulated by the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) or the General Chiropractic Council (GCC).

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.

<i>Landeros v. Flood</i> Court case in California

Landeros v. Flood was a 1976 court case in the state of California involving child abuse and alleged medical malpractice.

The World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA) is a not-for-profit corporation founded in Arizona in 1989 that serves as the voice of conservative "straight" chiropractors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Friends of Science in Medicine</span> Australian association which supports science-based medicine

The Friends of Science In Medicine (FSM) is an Australian association which supports evidence-based medicine and strongly opposes the promotion and practice of unsubstantiated therapies that lack a scientifically plausible rationale. They accomplish this by publicly raising their concerns either through direct correspondence or through media outlets. FSM was established in December 2011 by Loretta Marron, John Dwyer, Alastair MacLennan, Rob Morrison and Marcello Costa, a group of Australian biomedical scientists and clinical academics.

Various organizations of practicing chiropractors have outlined formal codes of professional ethics. Actual practice has revealed a wide range of behaviors which may or may not conform to these standards.

<i>Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia</i>

Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia, 489 F.3d 376, is a unanimous decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, written by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in which the Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. This case developed out of an appeal to a district court decision that was brought on behalf of a mentally incompetent patient who was subjected to an abortion without her consent and another patient who was subjected to an eye surgery without the patient's consent. Under the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent. The appellate decision was remanded to the District Court.

<i>Planned Parenthood v. Rounds</i> 2012 US legal decision

Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889, is an Eighth Circuit decision addressing the constitutionality of a South Dakota law which forced doctors to make certain disclosures to patients seeking abortions. The challenged statute required physicians to convey to their abortion-seeking patients a number of state-mandated disclosures, including a statement that abortions caused an "[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, along with its medical director Dr. Carol E. Ball, challenged the South Dakota law, arguing that it violated patients' and physicians' First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. After several appeals and remands, the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the South Dakota law, holding that the mandated suicide advisement was not "unconstitutionally misleading or irrelevant," and did "not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions or their physicians." This supplemented the Eighth Circuit's earlier rulings in this case, where the court determined that the state was allowed to impose a restrictive emergency exception on abortion procedures and to force physicians to convey disclosures regarding the woman's relationship to the fetus and the humanity of the fetus.

References

  1. ↑ Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895F.2d352 (7th Cir.1990).
  2. 1 2 "The Wilk Case"
  3. ↑ Dr. Chester A. Wilk, D.C., Dr. James W. Bryden, D.C., Dr. Patricia B. Arthur, D.C., and Dr. Michael D. Pedigo, D.C., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. American Medical Association, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. Dr. Chester A. Wilk, D.C., Dr. James W. Bryden, D.C., Dr. Patricia B. Arthur, D.C., and Dr. Michael D. Pedigo, D.C., Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants, v. American Medical Association, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, American College of Physicians and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Defendants-Cross-Appellees, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)LSU Law Center., 1990.C07.41521(7th Cir.February 7, 1990)("We affirm the district court's finding that the AMA violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by conducting an illegal boycott of chiropractors, and the district court's decision to grant an injunction against the AMA.").
  4. ↑ "George McAndrews Files In Supreme Court Against JCAH". Dynamic Chiropractic, May 9, 1990, Volume 08, Issue 10
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.