A Florida law, enacted in 2012, limits the amount a chiropractor can hold in trust to US$1,500. This should prevent chiropractors in Florida from recovering the full contract amounts in advance from patients who pay directly. However, tiered rate contracts may continue to be used . That same year, David Yachter and the Florida Board of Chiropractic Medicine signed a settlement agreement reprimanding him for paying a fine of $6,000 usurped plus US$5233.31 for fees, released on parole for 2 years and requiring advanced courses in risk management, recording and coding . Some chiropractors show a diagram of “subluxation degeneration” or “spinal disintegration,” which they say is inevitable without intensive and/or long-term care. Some tell almost all their patients that the curvature of their neck needs to be changed. All these tips represent an overselling. Even though chiropractic treatment can legitimately help a problem, it is not possible to know in advance that a large number of visits are necessary. Just because a clinic is in the perfect location doesn`t mean it`s the best place for you – so remember. Location, location, location – is not always accurate for work for another chiropractor. Instalment payments represent the least risk, as patients who stop “early” are probably not required to pay for more benefits than they have received.
The amount of money is usually too small to make legal action possible and non-payment of medical bills has no influence on a person`s creditworthiness. The full advance is riskier because if the chiropractor refuses to provide adequate reimbursement for unused services, it can be difficult to get one. Third-party funding by an information office is very dangerous, because whatever happens between the patient and the chiropractor, the patient remains legally required to repay the loan and non-repayment can seriously affect a person`s creditworthiness. That same month, a small claims judge declared null and void the contracts between chiropractor Donald Harte and two former patients who had sued Harte in Marin County, California. Gertrude West, a retired lawyer, had sought help with knee pain, but was ordered to deal intensely with the “subluxation degeneration” of her spine. She tolerated for 100 visits with a discount for prepayment, but heavy penalties for hiring. After 49 visits over a period of 4 months, she concluded that she had not been assisted and requested that the payment for unused visits be reimbursed. When Harte refused, she filed a complaint. The judge found that (a) West had been misled, (b) the penalty clause was “ruthless” and (c) West was entitled to a refund of $6,401 used for the cost of the complaint . . .