Asthma "Cure" Advertising and Advice to Stop an Inhaler

Issue: Whether directing a patient to discontinue a prescribed medication, and managing pediatric asthma, is within Montana chiropractic scope.

Analysis: Chiropractic scope centers on the diagnosis and treatment of neuromusculoskeletal conditions, especially vertebral subluxation, through adjustment or manipulation and adjunctive procedures permitted by law. It does not include prescribing drugs, performing surgery, or directing a patient to stop a medication prescribed by another provider. Advising discontinuation of an inhaled corticosteroid for a child with repeated urgent-care visits is effectively managing asthma, a medical condition outside the chiropractic scope. Nutritional counseling may be permitted as an adjunct, but selling a supplement kit as a substitute for prescribed care is not. The statement that the inhaler is "toxic" is not a chiropractic diagnosis; it is an unsupported medical assertion that exposes the child to harm. Failure to contact the pediatrician compounds the problem because the standard of care for a child with a chronic condition includes coordination with the treating physician.

Conclusion: The advice was outside scope and unprofessional. The Board can treat it as practicing medicine without a license, as a standard-of-care violation, and as a basis for discipline. The appropriate conduct was to adjust only within scope, document the child's Asthma control, encourage continued pediatric care, and refer urgently if control was poor.

Issue: Whether "cure asthma and reverse Type 2 diabetes-100% drug-free" is prohibited advertising.

Analysis: Professional advertising is protected speech, but false or misleading commercial speech is not. A claim of "cure" for asthma or "reversal" of Type 2 diabetes implies a guaranteed medical outcome that chiropractic care cannot deliver and that the practitioner cannot substantiate. The "100% drug-free" phrase also implies that abandoning medication is the goal, which is dangerous for both conditions. The Board looks at the overall impression, not just isolated words, and at whether the claim would mislead a reasonable patient. The website is evidence of intent and of the standard of care the practice held itself out to meet. It also creates a risk that patients will delay effective medical treatment.

Conclusion: The claims are misleading and subject to discipline. Dr. Reeve should remove them immediately, retain a copy of the prior website for the Board, and replace them with accurate descriptions of what chiropractic care can and cannot do. He should not repeat the claims during the investigation; continued advertising after notice is an aggravating factor.

Issue: Whether the record supports a finding of inadequate documentation and breach of the standard of care.

Analysis: A four-line note for a new pediatric patient with asthma cannot show the history, review of systems, red flags, medication list, examination findings, diagnosis, treatment plan, informed consent, or referral. The standard of care requires a documented assessment of asthma control and coordination with the pediatrician, especially before giving advice about medication. Informed consent for pediatric chiropractic care requires a discussion with the parent about risks, benefits, alternatives, and the limits of care. The note contains none of that. The lack of a consent discussion is both a records violation and an independent ethical failure. The subsequent hospitalization makes the gap more serious because the record cannot show what was said or considered.

Conclusion: The Board can find inadequate documentation and a standard-of-care breach even without expert testimony about the adjustment itself. Dr. Reeve should not backfill the note. He should write a late entry only if permitted, clearly labeled as a late entry, and otherwise provide a separate narrative. The Board may impose remediation, practice monitoring, or suspension if it finds an ongoing risk to patients.