Disciplinary Actions against David Manago, D.C.

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


In 1997, the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners charged David C. Manago, D.C. with gross negligence, repeated negligence, incompetence, and excessive administration of diagnostic or treatment procedure. The accusation (shown below), stated:

The case was settled in 1999 with a stipulation under which Manago admitted that he had failed to take an adequate history and agreed to be publicly reproved and to pay $3,000 for the cost of investigating and prosecuting the case. The other allegations were dismissed.

In 2013, Manago was cited for negligence and fined $500 for using a worthless device (a Sensometer) to diagnose and treat patients. The citation letter noted that the device was essentially the same as the Toftness Radiation Detector, which was not FDA-approved and had been banned in interstate commerce since 1982.


DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General 'of the State of California
Leslie B, Fleming
Deputy Attorney General, State Bar No. 68892
Department of Justice
110 West A Street, Suite 1100
Post Office Box 85266
San Diego, California 92186-5266
Telephone: (619) 645-2065

Attorneys for Complainant

BEFORE THE
BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

DAVID CHARLES MANAGO
26990 Crown Valley Parkway #C
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

License No. 14686

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
) |
)
)

NO. 97-310

ACCUSATION

Complainant M. Elizabeth Ware, as cause for disciplinary action, alleges:

PARTIES

1.  Complainant is the Executive Director of the California State Board of Chiropractic Examiners {"Board"} and makes and files this accusation solely in her official capacity.

License Status

2. On or about July I, 1982, License No. 14686 was issued by the Board to David Charles Manago (“Respondent "). The license will expire on October 31, 1997, if not renewed.

JURISDICTION

3, This accusation is made in reference to Section 1000-10 of the California Business and Professions Code (“Code"),which provides, in part, that the Board may suspend or revoke a license to practice chiropractic, or may place a license on probation or issue a reprimand to any licensee for violation of 'the rules and regulations adopted by the Board.

4. This accusation is made in reference to the following sections of Title 16 of the California Code of
Regulations ("CCR"):

a. Section 317 provides, in part, that the Board shall take action against the holder of any license who is guilty of unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to:

a. Gross negligence;

b. Repeated negligent: acts;

c. Incompetence;

d. The administration of treatment or the use of diagnostic procedures which are clearly excessive as determined by the customary practice and standards of the local community of licensees.

b. section 317.5 provides, in part, that the Board may request the administrative law judge to direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or violations of the Chiropractic Initiative Act to pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case.

CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS

5. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action based on, the following:

6. In or about; June 1993, respondent conducted a “free examination" of patient M.H.,  a three-year-old child. Respondent diagnosed the child as having 1) cervical cranial Syndrome; 2) Brachial Neuritis or Radiculitis; 3) Lumbar Plexus Disorder; and 4) Lumbalgia, and informed the child's father that M.H. needed immediate chiropractic treatments. These diagnoses were unwarranted given the history and physical condition of the child. Further, respondent/s records for this patient failed to contain sufficient subjective data and objective findings to support these diagnoses.

7. Respondent failed to perform a complete history and physical on patient M.H. and/or failed to record properly the results of such a history and physical in the patient records. Respondent took no :x-rays of the patient.

8. Based on respondent’s representations, M.H.’s father purchased a $342 pre-paid “service agreement" from respondent for 23 (or more) visits for the child. Respondent then proceeded to see the child for treatments on at least 17 occasions over the next 5-6 weeks. These treatments were excessive and unnecessary given the physical condition of the child.

9. M.H.’s mother became concerned about the number of treatments and had the child examined by another chiropractor and medical doctor. They both found no medical indication for continued chiropractic treatment of the child.

10. Respondent's conduct, as more particularly alleged in paragraphs 6 -9 above, constituted gross negligence in violation of CCR section 317(a) in that respondent:

1} Failed to take a complete history and physical examination of the patient;

2) Failed to keep appropriate and complete patient records;

3) Made diagnoses which were not related to or substantiated by the subjective complaints and objective findings;

4) Failed to refer the patient for a neurological consultation after making diagnoses such  as cervicocranial syndrome, brachial neuritis lumbar plexis disorder.

11. Respondent's conduct, as more particularly alleged in paragraphs 6-9 above, constituted repeated acts of 'negligence in violation of CCR section 317(b) in that respondent provided numerous treatments to the child over a 5-6 week time period, when the treatments were not warranted by the actual physical condition of the patient or by the subjective and objective data respondent had obtained.

12. Respondent's conduct, as more particularly alleged in paragraphs 6-9 above, constituted excessive treatment in violation of CCR section 317(d) in that he provided numerous treatments to the child over a 5 to 6 week time period, when the treatments were not warranted by the actual physical condition of the patient or by the subjective and objective data respondent had obtained.

13. Respondent's conduct, as more particularly alleged in paragraphs 6-9 above, constituted unprofessional conduct: in violation of CCR section 317(d) in that respondent:

1) failed to take a complete history and physical examination of the patient;

2) Failed to keep appropriate and complete patient records;

3) Made diagnoses which were not related to or substantiated by the subjective complaints and objective findings;

4) Failed to refer the patient for a neurological consultation after making diagnoses such as cervicocranial syndrome, brachial neuritis and lumbar plexis disorder.

5) Provided numerous treatments to the child over a 5 - 6 week time period, when the treatments were not warranted by the actual physical condition of the patient or the subjective and objective data respondent had obtained.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, complainant requests that the Board hold a hearing on the matters alleged herein, and that following said hearing, the Board issue a decision:

  1. Revoking or suspending License Number 14686, heretofore issued to respondent;

  2. Directing respondent to pay to the Board a reasonable sum for its ,investigative and enforcement costs of this action; and

  3. Taking such other and further action as the Board deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

DATED:  March 21, 1997.

_______________________
M. Elizabeth Ware
Executive Director
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
State of California

Complainant

This article was posted on June 29, 2012.

Links to Recommended Companies