OR Massage Law study materials
OR Massage Law study resources

The Weekend Cervical Adjustment

OR Massage Law · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The Weekend Cervical Adjustment

Danielle has practiced as an Oregon LMT for 12 years. A new client, Marcus, arrives with acute neck pain after a minor car accident. He asks Danielle to “crack” his neck, says a chiropractor is too expensive, and requests that she use a small electrical device he brought to “stimulate the nerve.” Danielle completed a 16-hour weekend course in spinal adjustment and owns a TENS unit. She also wants to tell Marcus that his pain is from a “pinched nerve at C5” and recommend a prescription-strength muscle relaxant that helped her. The clinic’s front desk has already told Marcus that Danielle can “do whatever a chiropractor does, but cheaper.” Danielle is unsure which parts of the request fall within Oregon’s massage practice act and which could create board exposure. She has a full schedule and does not want to lose the client.

1. Identify which parts of Marcus's request Danielle may lawfully perform under Oregon's massage practice act, and which parts she must decline. Explain the statutory reasoning.

Read the worked answer

Oregon’s massage practice act protects the public by limiting licensed massage therapists to massage/bodywork and authorized adjunctive modalities; it does not confer chiropractic, medical, or prescribing authority. Danielle may perform soft-tissue massage within her training and client consent, and may use only those adjunctive modalities that Board rules permit and for which she can document training. She should decline the cervical “crack”: spinal adjustment/manipulation is chiropractic scope, not massage. She should decline to diagnose a “pinched nerve at C5”; diagnosing a condition is outside massage scope. She should not recommend a prescription-strength drug; that is medical/prescribing advice. The client-supplied electrical device is risky: even if some electrical modalities are allowed under Board rules, she must verify authorization, infection control, contraindications, and informed consent. The front desk’s statement compounds the problem by promising chiropractic-like services. Danielle should explain the limits, offer a lawful massage plan, refer Marcus to a chiropractor or physician for diagnosis/adjustment, and document the refusal and referral.

2. What should Danielle do about the front desk's statement, and what board rule or statute makes it risky?

Read the worked answer

The front desk statement is misleading advertising and could be treated as advertising services beyond the clinic’s lawful scope. Oregon law and Board rules prohibit false or deceptive advertising and prohibit aiding or abetting unlicensed practice. If the clinic is a massage business, it may also face board scrutiny for allowing staff to promise chiropractic services. Danielle should correct the statement in writing, retract it to Marcus, train staff not to describe massage as chiropractic care, review the clinic’s website and intake materials, and document the correction. She should not rely on the front desk’s characterization as consent or authorization. If the owner refuses to correct it, she should escalate internally and consider whether continued association creates board exposure.

3. If Danielle performs the cervical manipulation and Marcus is injured, what regulatory and civil consequences are likely?

Read the worked answer

Performing cervical manipulation after a weekend course would likely be treated as practice beyond the scope of massage, regardless of the client’s request or the clinic’s promise. If Marcus is injured, Danielle could face a Board complaint, investigation, and sanctions ranging from reprimand to suspension or revocation, plus civil negligence exposure and possible insurance denial because the act was outside licensed scope. The clinic could face derivative exposure for advertising or aiding unlicensed/beyond-scope practice. The client’s consent does not cure a scope violation; consent only addresses touching within lawful practice. Danielle’s best protection is to refuse the out-of-scope acts, refer appropriately, and document the refusal and referral in objective terms.