Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Bill, This is a really important email. It should help us understand exactly whats at stake each time we open practice act/ scope of care issues. When I was on the board, Dave mentioned this numerous times to our board. I'm not saying I disagree with the decision to go forward with DN. In point of fact, I argued for this scope increase. I just want others to be aware that when we as a profession, make these requests, it's Dave McTeague (OBCE executive director); that has to do the lion share of the work. When he points out the difficulty, it's because he has our back. He doesn't want us to lose ground. So if there are other meetings, and you're one of the DCs in favor of adding this scope, it would be very appreciated if you could clear your schedule to be present. thanks, Minga Guerrero DC abowoman@... Re: DN appeals Dr. Hartje, The appeals process is lengthy, not to mention expensive. They file their briefs, we file our briefs, then responses, and maybe responses to the responses. Then after all that, Oral argument is requested. Each step takes weeks and months. Expect this to take six months to a year. When we know anything more for sure, we'll post it on our Web page advisory. Ultimately, this is a test of the OBCE's interpretation of our law and the extent to which the OBCE can interpret our laws in regards to scope of practice; so the implications are broader than the DN issue. Typically, the Court has given deference to the regulatory board; why our sledding has been so rough; hard to say. We're in uncharted waters. Dave McTeague, Ex. Dir. Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners 3218 Pringle Road SE # 150 Salem, Oregon 97302 503 373 1620 503-362-1260 (fax) http://www.oregon.gov/OBCE Data Classification: Level 2 - Limited "The mission of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners is to serve the public, regulate the practice of chiropractic, promote quality and ensure competent ethical health care." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 Minga, Are you saying, “You saw the needle and the damage done; A need to partake of it in everyone?” And if we don’t, it’ll be, Gone, gone, the damage done? I think I get your point. -- E. Abrahamson, D.C. Chiropractic physician Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic 315 Second Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-635-6246 Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com From: Minga Guerrero <AboWoman@...> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:59:57 -0500 (EST) < > Subject: Re: Fwd: DN appeals Bill, This is a really important email. It should help us understand exactly whats at stake each time we open practice act/ scope of care issues. When I was on the board, Dave mentioned this numerous times to our board. I'm not saying I disagree with the decision to go forward with DN. In point of fact, I argued for this scope increase. I just want others to be aware that when we as a profession, make these requests, it's Dave McTeague (OBCE executive director); that has to do the lion share of the work. When he points out the difficulty, it's because he has our back. He doesn't want us to lose ground. So if there are other meetings, and you're one of the DCs in favor of adding this scope, it would be very appreciated if you could clear your schedule to be present. thanks, Minga Guerrero DC abowoman@... Re: DN appeals Dr. Hartje, The appeals process is lengthy, not to mention expensive. They file their briefs, we file our briefs, then responses, and maybe responses to the responses. Then after all that, Oral argument is requested. Each step takes weeks and months. Expect this to take six months to a year. When we know anything more for sure, we'll post it on our Web page advisory. Ultimately, this is a test of the OBCE's interpretation of our law and the extent to which the OBCE can interpret our laws in regards to scope of practice; so the implications are broader than the DN issue. Typically, the Court has given deference to the regulatory board; why our sledding has been so rough; hard to say. We're in uncharted waters. Dave McTeague, Ex. Dir. Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners 3218 Pringle Road SE # 150 Salem, Oregon 97302 503 373 1620 503-362-1260 (fax) http://www.oregon.gov/OBCE Data Classification: Level 2 - Limited " The mission of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners is to serve the public, regulate the practice of chiropractic, promote quality and ensure competent ethical health care. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2012 Report Share Posted February 24, 2012 ...we really do need to change your meds …lol…Vern Saboe From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of AbrahamsonSent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:26 PMMinga Guerrero; Subject: Re: Fwd: DN appeals Minga,Are you saying, “You saw the needle and the damage done;A need to partake of it in everyone?”And if we don’t, it’ll be,Gone, gone, the damage done?I think I get your point.-- E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comFrom: Minga Guerrero <AboWoman@...>Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:59:57 -0500 (EST)< >Subject: Re: Fwd: DN appeals Bill,This is a really important email. It should help us understand exactly whats at stake each time we open practice act/ scope of care issues. When I was on the board, Dave mentioned this numerous times to our board. I'm not saying I disagree with the decision to go forward with DN. In point of fact, I argued for this scope increase. I just want others to be aware that when we as a profession, make these requests, it's Dave McTeague (OBCE executive director); that has to do the lion share of the work. When he points out the difficulty, it's because he has our back. He doesn't want us to lose ground. So if there are other meetings, and you're one of the DCs in favor of adding this scope, it would be very appreciated if you could clear your schedule to be present.thanks, Minga Guerrero DCabowoman@... Re: DN appealsDr. Hartje,The appeals process is lengthy, not to mention expensive. They filetheir briefs, we file our briefs, then responses, and maybe responses tothe responses. Then after all that, Oral argument is requested. Eachstep takes weeks and months. Expect this to take six months to a year.When we know anything more for sure, we'll post it on our Web pageadvisory.Ultimately, this is a test of the OBCE's interpretation of our law andthe extent to which the OBCE can interpret our laws in regards to scopeof practice; so the implications are broader than the DN issue.Typically, the Court has given deference to the regulatory board; whyour sledding has been so rough; hard to say. We're in uncharted waters.Dave McTeague, Ex. Dir.Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners3218 Pringle Road SE # 150Salem, Oregon 97302503 373 1620503-362-1260 (fax)http://www.oregon.gov/OBCEData Classification: Level 2 - Limited " The mission of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners is to servethe public, regulate the practice of chiropractic, promote quality andensure competent ethical health care. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Dear Drs., From my own understanding or lack thereof - a determination by our board and the making of a rule to guide our practice, DOES NOT open our scope of practice in the same manner as going to the legislature for a change in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) . Our board on dry needling merely interpreted our ORS (our laws). By going through the rule making process it became a formal process and became law UNTIL the rules were formally appealed. What I believe Dr. Hartje was trying to explain and I believe the same with Dr. Guerrero, is that was is at stake is the power of the board to make independant determinations in interpreting our laws as they are written in the ORS. Going through this process did not open our scope it just interpreted our scope. This issue is very, very important ,not because of Dry Needling, but because in other states like Texas the boards are having their power ripped from them. Whether you agree with adding Dry Needling into our right to practice physical therapy or not doesn't really matter but what does matter is the board having autonomy. This is a fight for our future and right to evolve not to just sit humbly in the corner and allow others to tell us when to rise. If that is clear as mud I apologize. s. fuchs dc > > > Bill, > This is a really important email. It should help us understand exactly whats at stake each time we open practice act/ scope of care issues. When I was on the board, Dave mentioned this numerous times to our board. I'm not saying I disagree with the decision to go forward with DN. In point of fact, I argued for this scope increase. I just want others to be aware that when we as a profession, make these requests, it's Dave McTeague (OBCE executive director); that has to do the lion share of the work. When he points out the difficulty, it's because he has our back. He doesn't want us to lose ground. So if there are other meetings, and you're one of the DCs in favor of adding this scope, it would be very appreciated if you could clear your schedule to be present. > thanks, > > > Minga Guerrero DC > abowoman@... > > > > > Re: DN appeals > > Dr. Hartje, > > The appeals process is lengthy, not to mention expensive. They file > their briefs, we file our briefs, then responses, and maybe responses to > the responses. Then after all that, Oral argument is requested. Each > step takes weeks and months. Expect this to take six months to a year. > When we know anything more for sure, we'll post it on our Web page > advisory. > > Ultimately, this is a test of the OBCE's interpretation of our law and > the extent to which the OBCE can interpret our laws in regards to scope > of practice; so the implications are broader than the DN issue. > Typically, the Court has given deference to the regulatory board; why > our sledding has been so rough; hard to say. We're in uncharted waters. > > Dave McTeague, Ex. Dir. > Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners > 3218 Pringle Road SE # 150 > Salem, Oregon 97302 > 503 373 1620 > 503-362-1260 (fax) > > http://www.oregon.gov/OBCE > Data Classification: Level 2 - Limited > > " The mission of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners is to serve > the public, regulate the practice of chiropractic, promote quality and > ensure competent ethical health care. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Sharron, thanks for that really great and more precise definition of what's happening with the DN issue. Minga Guerrero DC abowoman@... Re: DN appeals > > Dr. Hartje, > > The appeals process is lengthy, not to mention expensive. They file > their briefs, we file our briefs, then responses, and maybe responses to > the responses. Then after all that, Oral argument is requested. Each > step takes weeks and months. Expect this to take six months to a year. > When we know anything more for sure, we'll post it on our Web page > advisory. > > Ultimately, this is a test of the OBCE's interpretation of our law and > the extent to which the OBCE can interpret our laws in regards to scope > of practice; so the implications are broader than the DN issue. > Typically, the Court has given deference to the regulatory board; why > our sledding has been so rough; hard to say. We're in uncharted waters. > > Dave McTeague, Ex. Dir. > Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners > 3218 Pringle Road SE # 150 > Salem, Oregon 97302 > 503 373 1620 > 503-362-1260 (fax) > > http://www.oregon.gov/OBCE > Data Classification: Level 2 - Limited > > "The mission of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners is to serve > the public, regulate the practice of chiropractic, promote quality and > ensure competent ethical health care." > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 You are welcome. I know that every DC feels under attack at times. The issue of Dry Needling and our boards right to autonomy is the canary in the coal mine, so to speak. s. fuchs dc From: abowoman@... [mailto:abowoman@...] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 1:41 PM Sharron Fuchs; Subject: Re: Fwd: DN appeals Sharron, thanks for that really great and more precise definition of what's happening with the DN issue. Minga Guerrero DC abowoman@... -----Original Message----- From: sharron <sharronf@...> < > Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 2:32 pm Subject: Re: Fwd: DN appeals Dear Drs., From my own understanding or lack thereof - a determination by our board and the making of a rule to guide our practice, DOES NOT open our scope of practice in the same manner as going to the legislature for a change in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) . Our board on dry needling merely interpreted our ORS (our laws). By going through the rule making process it became a formal process and became law UNTIL the rules were formally appealed. What I believe Dr. Hartje was trying to explain and I believe the same with Dr. Guerrero, is that was is at stake is the power of the board to make independant determinations in interpreting our laws as they are written in the ORS. Going through this process did not open our scope it just interpreted our scope. This issue is very, very important ,not because of Dry Needling, but because in other states like Texas the boards are having their power ripped from them. Whether you agree with adding Dry Needling into our right to practice physica l therapy or not doesn't really matter but what does matter is the board having autonomy. This is a fight for our future and right to evolve not to just sit humbly in the corner and allow others to tell us when to rise. If that is clear as mud I apologize. s. fuchs dc > > > Bill, > This is a really important email. It should help us understand exactly whats at stake each time we open practice act/ scope of care issues. When I was on the board, Dave mentioned this numerous times to our board. I'm not saying I disagree with the decision to go forward with DN. In point of fact, I argued for this scope increase. I just want others to be aware that when we as a profession, make these requests, it's Dave McTeague (OBCE executive director); that has to do the lion share of the work. When he points out the difficulty, it's because he has our back. He doesn't want us to lose ground. So if there are other meetings, and you're one of the DCs in favor of adding this scope, it would be very appreciated if you could clear your schedule to be present. > thanks, > > > Minga Guerrero DC > abowoman@... > > > > > Re: DN appeals > > Dr. Hartje, > > The appeals process is lengthy, not to mention expensive. They file > their briefs, we file our briefs, then responses, and maybe responses to > the responses. Then after all that, Oral argument is requested. Each > step takes weeks and months. Expect this to take six months to a year. > When we know anything more for sure, we'll post it on our Web page > advisory. > > Ultimately, this is a test of the OBCE's interpretation of our law and > the extent to which the OBCE can interpret our laws in regards to scope > of practice; so the implications are broader than the DN issue. > Typically, the Court has given deference to the regulatory board; why > our sledding has been so rough; hard to say. We're in uncharted waters. > > Dave McTeague, Ex. Dir. > Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners > 3218 Pringle Road SE # 150 > Salem, Oregon 97302 > 503 373 1620 > 503-362-1260 (fax) > > http://www.oregon.gov/OBCE > Data Classification: Level 2 - Limited > > " The mission of the Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners is to serve > the public, regulate the practice of chiropractic, promote quality and > ensure competent ethical health care. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.