Conway Chiropractic Duo Working To Resolve Complaints

by Mark Friedman  on Monday, Mar. 24, 2014 12:00 am  

Chiropractors Keith and Natalie Currie of Conway (left) said they have successfully treated thousands of patients at their clinic. The Curries are represented by attorney Michael Lamoureux of Russellville (right), who is also the current President Pro Tempore of the Arkansas Senate.

“Simply put, there is not finding of fact as to which doctor was responsible for the patient’s care, administrative responses to patients’ requests for records and documents, or supervision of support staff which appear to be the basis of the conclusions and finding of violations,” Wood wrote in her order, filed Nov. 14, 2012. “Without a finding as to how the individual physician is responsible to a particular patient, there cannot be a finding of unprofessional conduct.”

The Curries’ court victory was short lived, though. The Chiropractic Board appealed Wood’s decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

In October 2013, Court of Appeals Judge Brandon Harrison concurred with the Curries that the board’s order didn’t identify which chiropractor was responsible for conduct that led to the fine.

“Without the required factual findings, we are left with a difficult, if not impossible, task in determining whether the administrative decision was correct,” Harrison wrote in his Oct. 30 opinion.

Harrison sent the case back to the board to further explain its decision. The Court of Appeals also ordered that the Curries pay the Chiropractic Board $5,207.50 for the cost of the appeal.

Old Allegations

Meanwhile, as that case was making its way through the courts, other complaints against the Curries were pilling up again at the Chiropractic Board.

Not all of the complaints were for issues that had recently occurred. Three of the patient complaints filed with the board on Feb. 2, 2011, first had been filed with the state attorney general’s office — back in 2008 and 2009.

The Curries in their responses to the complaints took issue with the Chiropractic Board filing the complaints because the allegations were so old. In addition, they felt the board’s investigating officer, Terry Barnett, was out to get them.

“I also find it extremely contradictory that the Investigating Officer told me in previous administrative matters that he is coming after my license,” Keith Currie wrote in a response to a complaint in May 2011. “How can this man be the ‘fact finder’ for the board when he has clearly shown contempt and aggression towards my practice?”

Wright, the executive director of the Chiropractic Board, said she didn’t know what caused the delay in getting the complaints from the AG’s office to the Chiropractic Board.

“It is our procedure that when we receive a complaint from another agency, we follow up with a complaint from our agency,” Wright said.



Please read our comments policy before commenting.