Complaint Review: Minnesota Board of Chiropractic - Minneapolis Minnesota

Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners recently blasted the Minnesota Attorney General for criticizing the Board’s decision to reinstate the license of fraudulent chiropractor Randy Miland who has not satisfied his court order to repay swindled victims.

THE CRIME

Randy Miland was convicted of 5 Counts of Theft by Swindle in 2001 for conducting a fraudulent Blockbuster Video investment scheme which involved at least 30 victims, patients and chiropractors. Miland served a six month incarceration sentence in a work camp and was ordered to pay victims $1.3 million in restitution. Miland ceased making restitution payments to victims in 2004 leaving victims with an outstanding balance of over $1.2 million. Victims filed complaints and sought assistance from the Attorney General to have Miland’s license revoked. Eventually, the board of chiropractors suspended his license. Miland was again convicted of a fraudulent investment scheme in 2006 involving over $500,000 and again sentenced to a work camp and ordered to pay restitution.

PROBATIONARY LICENSE REINSTATEMENT

In 2011, the Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners granted Miland a two year probationary license reinstatement despite his outstanding court order to repay victims. Miland will become eligible to have his license fully reinstated in December of 2013. Victims became aware of the reinstatement in 2012 and asked the Attorney General to honor their commitment to victims as detailed in their letter to victims dated April 5, 2000 to “file a brief in opposition to the application unless Dr. Miland gives restitution in full to the people he defrauded”.

REQUEST FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SUPPORT VICTIMS

In January of 2013, the Minnesota Attorney General sent a 100+ page document to several government agencies requesting assistance and representation for victims. In this document, the Board of Chiropractors was asked by the Attorney General to “review Miland’s failure to make restitution payments to his victims and the impact such failure should have on the terms and conditions of his license.” The Attorney General further commented “while the Board conditioned Miland’s probationary license on his repayment to government agencies, it did not make repayment to victims a condition of his license. I ask that the Board review the terms of Miland’s probationary license as it relates to the nonpayment of restitution, and that it afford his victims the opportunity to make comment on the matter.”

BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS DENIES REQUEST TO SUPPORT VICTIMS

In May of 2013, the Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners responded to the Attorney General by stating “you correctly state that, while the Board conditioned Dr. Miland’s probationary license on his repayment to Government agencies, it  did not make repayment to victims a condition of his license reinstatement”. In a response to victims, the Board wrote “it was the Board’s expectation that restitution payments would continue, the panel has determined that this matter is resolved.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL REINFORCES SUPPORT FOR VICTIMS

In June of 2013, Ben Wogsland of the Attorney General’s office replied by saying the Board’s decision to reinstate Miland’s license despite owing more than $1 million to his victims doesn’t seem sensible. Fred Fink from the Washington County Attorney office commented “We took the level of the theft into account when we dealt with him. That included demanding restitution and obviously he didn’t pay.” “As a result, he was able to avoid that responsibility and someone should hold him responsible.” Larry Spicer with the Board responded by stating “requiring Miland to repay victims as a condition of getting his license back is completely impermissible.” Dr. Spicer further commented “This Board cannot require restitution.”

BOARD ACCUSES ATTORNEY GENERAL

In a September of 2013 meeting between the Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners and Attorney General, Dr. Ralph Stouffer told attorneys “Now I have an Attorney General that is an attorney for the public and not an attorney for me as a Board.” The Board further commented that “What I’m upset about is now the Attorney General’s office becomes the people’s attorney and sort of backstabs us.”  Dr. Larry Spicer said the Attorney General “never said the Board could deny the license or place a condition that required restitution for the victims.” Spicer further said “the concern is that happened in a public venue, the throwing of the Board under the bus.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL CLARIFIES POSITION TO MEDIA

In September of 2013, Ben Wogsland for the Attorney General said the Board had authority to deny Miland’s license and it is very clear that even if they decide not to continue to have it suspended, they can put terms and conditions on it. Deputy Attorney General Karen Olson also responded by saying Attorney General Swanson speaks for the State, first and foremost and the MBCE’s decision is not the decision of the Attorney General. When asked if the Attorney General’s office would have defended a decision to deny Miland’s license, or place conditions of restitution, Wogsland said “Absolutely”.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDS TO VICTIMS

The Attorney General responded to victims in October clarifying their position and the Board’s responsibility “the Board is the sole entity responsible for deciding whether to refuse to grant, revoke, suspend, condition, limit, restrict or qualify a license to practice chiropractic.” The letter further read “This office does not have authority to appoint members of the Board or to oversee the Board or its decisions. The Board is the sole decision maker with regard to the disciplinary action to be taken against a licensee”.  

The Attorney General letter to victims also clarified that the Board of Chiropractic had several occasions to take action against Miland on behalf of victims but chose not to take action. The letter said“in 1999, the Board could have revoked Miland’s license; instead, it chose at that time to indefinitely suspend (rather than revoke) the license. In 2011, Miland petitioned to have the suspension lifted. The Board had the authority to deny Miland’s petition to reinstate his license in 2011. The Board also had authority to place terms and conditions on any probationary license. Minn. Stat. 148.10. subd. 3(2) provides that the Board may place the person on probation for the period and upon the terms and conditions that the board may prescribe. The Board did not place a term or condition on Miland’s license requiring him to pay restitution in 2011.” The letter further commented that when this matter was first brought to the Attorney General’s attention in January of 2013, the Attorney General “asked the Board to reexamine the matter. The Board again at that time chose not to take further action.”

INITIAL GROUND RULES AND SUPPORT FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL

This isn’t the first time the office of the Attorney General has attempted to represent victims of Randy Miland with regard to his license reinstatement. In a letter to victims dated April 5, 2000, the Attorney General  wrote “In addition, the Stipulation and Order enables the Board to impose numerous restrictions and conditions on Dr. Miland’s practice in the event that the Board ever decides to reinstate his license. If Dr. Miland should ever apply for reinstatement of his license this office will file a brief in opposition to the application unless Dr. Miland gives restitution in full to the people he defrauded. We will also make a motion that the victims of Dr. Miland be given notice and an opportunity to express their position on the application.”

Additionally, a letter from the Attorney General to victims dated April 17, 2000 read “the Office of the Attorney General provides legal services to health licensing boards. These services include advising the boards on legal issues related to license applications and reinstatements. I have asked the legal staff assigned to represent the Chiropractic Board to inform me if Randy Miland petitions for reinstatement of his license. I trust this information reassures you that I will be informed of any petition for reinstatement by Randy Miland.”

VICTIM FEEDBACK

Several victims remarked about the disagreement between the MBCE and Attorney General. One victim remarked “It’s like watching a tennis match but the victims are left out in left field”. Another remarked “The MBCE never intended to support victims. They were reluctant to support us in 1999 and are still upset because we sought assistance from the Attorney General.”  Another said “The Board has the power to protect patients but chose to protect one of their own instead”.  Another said “It is very disturbing they can make decisions and discriminate without being accountable to any other authority. Most disturbing is their refusal to represent victims.”  Victims also believe the MBCE had several opportunities to rectify the issue.

Victims are upset with the Board’s decision but are thankful for the efforts of the Attorney General and remarked that their office has been very supportive.

SUMMARY

It appears Initial ground rules were established more than 10 years ago to object to any license reinstatement application by Randy Miland unless he had repaid his swindled victims. The Board of Chiropractors, Health Licensing Board and Attorney General were involved with the license suspension and reapplication procedures. The Board of Chiropractors and Attorney General received complaints during the 1990’s and 2012 regarding Miland’s crimes and failure to satisfy court order. All entities are fully aware of Miland’s crimes and outstanding court ordered Judgments.

The Board of Chiropractors is solely responsible for establishing and enforcing rules, statutes and penalties and maintains a lawful right to establish license reinstatement terms and conditions for victims. The Board did establish reinstatement collection terms for the MBCE and the Commissioner of Revenue but did not establish collection terms for victims.

Ten months have passed since the Attorney General submitted a formal request to the Minnesota Board of Chiropractic Examiners to review the issue and assist victims. The MBCE has not taken action to assist victims. It is unclear why action is not being taken to assist victims or why a breakdown is occurring. But it is clear that friction continues between the MBCE and Attorney General regarding victim representation and the license reinstatement of Randy Miland. Meanwhile, victims remain without representation.