IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lawrence Charles Bennett, D.C., :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 412 C.D. 2018

: Argued: April 9, 2019

Bureau of Professional and :

Occupational Affairs, State Board :

of Chiropractic, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: May 8, 2019

Lawrence Charles Bennett, D.C., (Licensee) petitions for review from 

an order of the State Board of Chiropractic (Board) suspending his chiropractic 

license based on violations of the Chiropractic Practice Act (Act).1 The Board 

determined Licensee engaged in misleading advertising regarding treatment 

possibilities using a non-Board approved device, and that his reliance on the device 

to diagnose and treat patients constituted unprofessional conduct. Licensee contends

the Board lacked authority to discipline his use of the device and representations 

regarding its efficacy because such activities related to nutritional counseling for 

which no chiropractic license is required. In addition, he challenged certain findings

that relied on expert testimony as not supported by substantial evidence, asserting 

the expert lacked competence to testify about the device. Discerning no error below, 

we affirm. 

 

1 Act of December 16, 1986, P.L. 1646, as amended, 63 P.S. §§625.101-625.1106.
2

I. Background

Licensee obtained his chiropractic license in June 1992. He received 

no complaints prior to the one underlying this licensure action. His chiropractic 

practice, located in Ephrata, Pennsylvania, includes use of alternative techniques. 

One such technique is galvanic skin measurement using Asyra, a Class II device

registered with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Device). 

Relevant here, in 2012, Licensee placed a four-page advertisement in 

The Plain Communities Business Exchange in the form of a newsletter entitled 

“Improve Your Health for Life!” Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 325a-28a (Newsletter). 

After noting Licensee was a licensed chiropractor proficient in various techniques,

the majority of the Newsletter lauded the benefits of using the Device. It represented 

that holding the two brass handles of the Device for a few minutes, while connected 

to a computer, tested for “over 7,000 issues present in the body.” R.R. at 325a.

The Newsletter described the Device as integral to a “complete exam,”

more thorough than Licensee’s basic exam. R.R. at 328a. For an additional $170, 

the complete exam included “computerized testing to determine[:] your overall state 

of health[;] ... the number of toxins being stored in your body[;] [and] which organs 

these toxins are being stored in.” Id. The Newsletter explained: “As part of your 

comprehensive exam, the doctor will use the [Device] to evaluate your spine, hips and 

joints. If any of these areas are determined to be misaligned you will be receiving an 

adjustment to correct these findings.” Id. (emphasis added). Under “Patient Cases,” 

it stated “[c]omputerized testing allows me to treat every patient as a unique 

individual, never guessing about the cause of their illness.” Id. (emphasis added).
3

The Newsletter also included “patient” testimonials. R.R. at 327a-28a. 

One testimonial, from a woman diagnosed with breast cancer, reported that use of 

the supplements indicated by the Device resulted in her cancer shrinking to half its 

initial size. The Newsletter represented Licensee had a “90% success rate” with the 

Device, noting it allowed him to treat patient illness generally. R.R. at 325a. 

The content ended with “Dr. Bennett” in signature-style. R.R. at 328a. 

Then, below an ad for bus service between Ephrata and Ohio/Indiana, appeared a 

disclaimer. Printed in the same small font as most of the Newsletter, it read: 

The information presented in this newsletter is for 

informational purposes only. It is not intended to replace 

medical advice and/or care. You should not use the information 

contained herein for diagnosing or treating a health problem or 

disease or prescribing any medication. In addition, we do not 

prescribe medication nor do we recommend that you 

discontinue taking any prescription drugs. 

Id. 

In late 2012, a Missouri dentist registered a complaint with the Board 

about the Newsletter, asserting it was misleading. In particular, he was concerned

that the Mennonite community was susceptible to believing its claims. The Board 

undertook an investigation, which lasted more than two years. 

The Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs then issued a 

seven-count order to show cause. It alleged the following violations: committing 

immoral or unprofessional conduct (Count 1); departing from the standards of 

acceptable chiropractic care (Count 2); advertising chiropractic practice in a manner 
4

intended or with a tendency to deceive the public (Count 3); making misleading, 

deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of chiropractic (Count 

4); utilizing advertising that is false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading (Count 5); 

holding himself out as a specialist without having a post-graduate certificate in that 

specialty (Count 6); and, making representations that chiropractic care would cure 

cancer or an infectious or communicable disease (Count 7). See R.R. at 2a-10a.

Licensee filed an answer in which he admitted to publishing the 

Newsletter. However, he denied the Newsletter contents violated the Act. 

The Board held a formal hearing on the charges in October 2015. 

During the hearing, the Board presented the expert testimony of J. Clifford Renyo, 

D.C. (Expert), accepted by Licensee as an expert in chiropractic care. Licensee 

objected to Expert testifying regarding the capabilities of the Device. Licensee 

testified on his own behalf, and for the Commonwealth as on cross-examination.

Licensee admitted that the Newsletter represented he would “use the 

[Device] to evaluate your spine, hips and joints.” Hr’g Tr., 10/1/15, Notes of 

Testimony (N.T.) at 24; R.R. at 75a. He explained the Device uses “resonances” to 

determine imbalancesin the body, which did not necessarily affect functionality. N.T. 

at 26-28; R.R. at 77a-79a. He acknowledged the Board did not approve the use of the 

Device in chiropractic care. Licensee confirmed that patients referenced in the 

Newsletter were his patients, and that he used results from testing with the Device to 

treat his patients. N.T. at 56; R.R. at 107a. The majority of his patients receive the 

complete exam, which includes testing with the Device. N.T. at 65; R.R. at 116a. 
5

In his case in chief, Licensee emphasized the disclaimer contained in 

the Newsletter and the additional disclaimer that he provided as part of the intake 

interview with all new patients. The disclaimer in the patient intake form stated: 

I understand that the procedures that [Licensee] uses in his

practice are not a method for ‘diagnosing’ or ‘treating’ of any 

disease including conditions of cancer, AIDS, infections, or 

other medical conditions, and that these are not being tested for 

or treated. Furthermore, no promises or guarantees are made 

regarding the results of [Licensee’s] procedures.

R.R. at 376a. Before undergoing treatment, each new patient signs and dates the 

intake form containing the above disclaimer. Licensee also underscored that counsel 

reviewed the Newsletter to assess its content. 

Expert testified regarding the standard of care in chiropractic and 

whether the Device met those standards, and his view on representations in the 

Newsletter. He explained he researched the FDA’s approval of the Device and 

documents the FDA published regarding the Device on its website. He opined the 

Device was not consistent with the chiropractic standard of care. He found the 

Newsletter misleading in that it indicated the Device could identify viruses for 

effective treatment when chiropractors are not licensed to treat communicable 

diseases. R.R. at 179a. Expert was concerned that Licensee “relie[d] on an unproven 

device to determine where misalignments, a.k.a. subluxations, are located before 

performing his adjustments. The ability to determine and correct a misalignment is 

fundamental to a chiropractor[’]s training.” Bd. Op., 2/28/18, Finding of Fact (F.F.) 

No. 26 (quoting N.T. at 125-26). He opined that before relying on a Device for use 

in chiropractic practice, a doctor must make sure that it is effective, particularly when 

it is not approved by the Board or accredited chiropractic institutions. 
6

Ultimately, in February 2018, the Board issued its final adjudication, 

concluding Licensee was subject to discipline under the Act as set forth in Counts 1, 

3, 4, 5, and 7 of the order to show cause. The Board considered the violations related 

to misrepresentations in the Newsletter (Counts 3, 4, and 5) as one violation. 

Specifically, it concluded that use of the Device, which is not Board-approved, 

without training on the Device, constituted “unprofessional conduct” that failed to 

conform to chiropractic standards in violation of Section 506(a)(11) of the Act, 63 

P.S. §625.506(a)(11). As to the misleading advertising charges, the Board found the 

Newsletter indicated that the Device was meant to diagnose and treat a number of 

listed conditions that are outside the scope of chiropractic, like breast cancer. As a 

result, the Board suspended Licensee’s license for 36 months, with an active 

suspension of three (3) months, effective 30 days later (March 30, 2018), followed 

by 33 months of probation. The Board also imposed a civil penalty of $10,000.

Licensee timely petitioned for review of the Board’s final adjudication 

and order. Licensee also sought a stay pending appeal, which was unopposed. Thus, 

this Court granted a stay of the suspension. 

II. Discussion

On appeal,2 Licensee argues the Board erred as a matter of law in 

regulating his nutritional counseling activities when that activity does not require a 

chiropractic license. He contends the Board’s findings are not based on substantial 

evidence because there is no evidence that he used the Device as part of his

 

2

In reviewing the Board’s order, we consider whether constitutional rights were violated 

and whether the “order is supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with the law.” 

Feingold v. State Bd. of Chiropractic, 568 A.2d 1365, 1366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). 
7

chiropractic care as opposed to nutritional counseling. He also contests Expert’s 

qualifications as to use of the Device and its effectiveness, and challenges the 

Board’s findings to the extent they relied on expert testimony. 

There is no dispute that Licensee published the Newsletter, only 

whether the representations in the Newsletter fall within the practice of chiropractic 

under the Board’s jurisdiction. Licensee maintains that he used the Device to perform 

nutritional counseling, for which a chiropractic license is not required.

A. License in Chiropractic Care

“[T]he right to practice a chosen profession is subject to the lawful 

exercise of the power of the State to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and 

morals by promulgating laws and regulations that reasonably regulate occupations.” 

Khan v. State Bd. of Auctioneer Exam’rs, 842 A.2d 936, 946 (Pa. 2004). A licensing 

board “‘exercises considerable discretion in policing its licensees.’” Abruzzese v. 

Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Cosmetology, 185 A.3d 446, 

453 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citation omitted). Accordingly, our review of disciplinary 

decisions by a professional board is extremely deferential. King v. Bureau of Prof’l & 

Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Barber Exam’rs, 195 A.3d 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

The Board has the power to decide matters related to chiropractic 

licenses, from issuance to revocation, and to regulate licensees pursuant to Section 

302 of the Act, 63 P.S. §625.302. Attendant to this authority, the Board may suspend 

a license for “misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the 

practice of chiropractic.” Section 506(a)(2) of the Act, 63 P.S. §625.506(a)(2).
8

Here, Licensee maintains the Board exceeded its authority in regulating 

his representations regarding the Device because he uses it to perform nutritional 

counseling. Based on the premise that he uses the Device in nutritional counseling 

only, Licensee argues his representations in the Newsletter are beyond the Board’s 

jurisdiction because no license is required to perform nutritional counseling. 

Presuming for the sake of argument only that Licensee used the Device 

solely for nutritional counseling, we consider Licensee’s contention that the Board 

lacks authority to impose any discipline for his activities as a nutritional counselor. 

He argues Conclusion of Law No. 3, that “the provision of nutritional counseling is 

one of the licensed activities within the definition of ‘chiropractic’ in the 

Chiropractic Practice Act,” is erroneous. We disagree.

Section 102 of the Act defines “chiropractic” in full as follows:

A branch of the healing arts dealing with the relationship 

between the articulations of the vertebral column, as well as 

other articulations, and the neuro-musculo-skeletal system and 

role of these relationships in the restoration and maintenance of 

health. The term shall include systems of locating misaligned 

or displaced vertebrae of the human spine and other 

articulations; the examination preparatory to the adjustment or 

manipulation of such misaligned or displaced vertebrae and 

other articulations; the adjustment or manipulation of such 

misaligned or displaced vertebrae and other articulations; the 

furnishing of necessary patient care for the restoration and 

maintenance of health; and the use of board-approved scientific 

instruments of analysis, including X-ray. The term shall also 

include diagnosis, provided that such diagnosis is necessary to 

determine the nature and appropriateness of chiropractic 

treatment; the use of adjunctive procedures in treating 

misaligned or dislocated vertebrae or articulations and related 

conditions of the nervous system, provided that, after January 

1, 1988, the licensee must be certified in accordance with this 

act to use adjunctive procedures; and nutritional counseling,
9

provided that nothing herein shall be construed to require 

licensure as a chiropractor in order to engage in nutritional 

counseling. The term shall not include the practice of obstetrics 

or gynecology, the reduction of fractures or major dislocations, 

or the use of drugs or surgery.

63 P.S. §625.102 (emphasis added). The Board is “bound by the statutory definition 

of chiropractic.” Feingold v. State Bd. of Chiropractic, 568 A.2d 1365, 1367 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1990). By expressly including “nutritional counseling” within chiropractic, 

the legislature subjected such activities to the Board’s regulatory authority when 

performed by a chiropractor. Id. 

Licensee’s proffered interpretation, to exclude nutritional counseling 

from chiropractic because a chiropractic license is not required to perform that 

activity, ignores the plain language in the Act. The phrase “nothing herein shall be 

construed to require licensure as a chiropractor in order to engage in nutritional 

counseling” simply means an individual engaged in nutritional counseling may not 

be prosecuted for practicing chiropractic without a license. Cf. Feingold (holding 

naturopath violated Act by engaging in unlicensed practice of chiropractic).

Nutritional counseling is expressly within the scope of chiropractic that 

is subject to Board regulation and discipline when that activity is performed by a 

licensed chiropractor. Thus, the Board did not exceed the scope of its authority in 

disciplining Licensee to the extent his activities related to nutritional counseling. 

Regardless, the record does not support the factual predicate for 

Licensee’s argument– that his use of the Device was limited to nutritional counseling. 

In reviewing the Newsletter, it contains no references to “nutritional counseling,”
10

although it contains a number of references to Licensee as “doctor,” including at the 

top of the page as “Dr. Lawrence Bennett,” and states he is a “licensed chiropractor.” 

R.R. at 325a. Instead of nutritional counseling, the Newsletter refers to use of the 

Device as “computerized testing” and as part of the “comprehensive exam” or 

“complete exam” that Licensee performs on his chiropractic patients. 

As described in the Newsletter and in his testimony, Licensee did not 

separate nutritional counseling from chiropractic care. Rather, the Device was a part 

of the regular care he provided to his patients. Licensee testified that the majority of 

his chiropractic patients purchased the complete exam. N.T. at 65; R.R. at 116a. 

Testing with the Device was Step 2 of a complete exam, after Step 1 (consultation), 

and prior to Step 3 (report of the doctor’s findings), Step 4 (chiropractic adjustment), 

and Step 5 (muscle stimulation). Thus, Licensee used the Device on his patients on a 

regular basis in his chiropractic practice. 

Based on the statutory definition of chiropractic, and as incorporated 

into Licensee’s practice here, we conclude the Board’s regulation of Licensee’s 

nutritional counseling activities was within the Board’s statutory authority. 

B. Insufficient Evidence

Next, we consider Licensee’s challenges to the Board’s findings that he

violated the Act as not supported by substantial evidence. He asserts Expert was not 

qualified to opine with respect to the Device or disclaimers, rendering his testimony 

incompetent and thus an insufficient basis for the Board’s findings. He also contends 

the Board disregarded the evidence and import of his disclaimers.
11

An agency adjudication will be set aside if the agency’s findings are not 

supported by substantial evidence. Feingold. Substantial evidence is “such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, 

[but must be] ... more than a scintilla and must do more than create a suspicion of 

the existence of the fact to be established.” Yi v. State Bd. of Veterinary Med., 960 

A.2d 864, 874 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (citation omitted). “Pennsylvania courts have 

long recognized that administrative boards, comprised of members of the profession 

they oversee, may base their decisions on the collective expertise of those members.” 

Batoff v. State Bd. of Psychology, 750 A.2d 835 (Pa. 2000). Further, “matters of 

credibility and evidentiary weight are within the exclusive discretion of the 

factfinder below, and are not within our scope of review.” Hartman v. State Bd. of 

Optometrical Bd. of Exam’rs, 454 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

The Board’s regulations prohibit certain advertising, 49 Pa. Code 

§5.31, and “unprofessional and immoral conduct,” 49 Pa. Code §5.81(1). Relevant 

here, “unprofessional conduct” includes: “(iii) Advertising a chiropractic practice 

in a manner which is intended or has the tendency to deceive the public[][3] ... [and] 

 

3 Section 5.31(c) prohibits “false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading” advertising as 

“unprofessional conduct.” 49 Pa. Code §5.31(c). It provides, in pertinent part:

(c) An advertisement shall be deemed by the Board to be fraudulent, false, 

deceptive or misleading if it does one of the following: 

(1) Contains a misrepresentation of facts. 

(2) Makes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts in its content or in the 

context in which it is presented ....

(3) Creates false or unjustified expectations of beneficial treatment for a 

successful result. 

(4) Is designed to inflame or appeal primarily to a layperson’s fears, ignorance 

or anxieties regarding the person’s state of health or physical well-being. 

Id. (emphasis added).
12

(xiv) Practicing or advertising adjunctive procedures without a certificate to use 

adjunctive procedures issued by the Board.” 49 Pa. Code §5.81 (emphasis added). 

Licensee disregards that nutritional counseling is part of chiropractic 

care, the subject for which he accepted Expert as qualified to offer an expert opinion. 

Expert testified the Device was not accepted as a treatment within chiropractic care. 

He also testified that use of the Device was not part of the curriculum in chiropractic 

schools, and programs did not offer certification in its use. N.T. at 126; R.R. at 177a. 

He noted his concern when a licensee holds himself out to the public as a chiropractor

specializing in use of a particular device when the device is not Board-approved, and 

the licensee had no special training to use the device. N.T. at 122-27; R.R. at 173a-78a. 

Such is the case here.

Additionally, Expert’s unfamiliarity with the Device did not render him 

unqualified to offer an expert opinion as to accepted levels of chiropractic care. 

Expert was qualified to opine that certain claims in the Newsletter amounted to 

misleading advertising by “creat[ing] false or unjustified expectations of beneficial 

treatment for a successful result.” 49 Pa. Code §5.31; see N.T. at 128; R.R. at 179a. 

Expert was also qualified to opine that chiropractic care does not treat 

cancer or infectious diseases; those conditions are not within chiropractic care. N.T. 

at 128; R.R. at 179a. Nevertheless, the Newsletter indicated patients suffering from 

such diseases received benefits from Licensee’s treatment, as by shrinking the size of 

a cancer tumor. See R.R. at 327a. That evidence supports Count 7. 
13

Moreover, the primary evidence the Board relied upon for its findings 

was the Newsletter and Licensee’s admissions regarding his use of the Device. 

Importantly, Licensee admitted he used the Device to test the majority 

of the patients who came to his chiropractic practice who received a complete exam.

N.T. at 65; R.R. at 116a; see also Pet’r’s Br. at 19. Licensee used the Device to 

assist him in treating his patients, including in assessing misalignments. R.R. at 77a. 

That Licensee did not rely solely on the Device to guide his treatment decisions does 

not change the fact that he used a non-approved device, for which he had no 

specialized training, in administering chiropractic care. 

Licensee was responsible for the Newsletter content, including 

unsupported claims of a 90% successrate with his technique. N.T. at 83; R.R. at 134a.

He confirmed the only training in his technique was his “chiropractic degree.” N.T.

at 82; R.R. at 133a. Licensee’s use of the Device in his practice and his representations 

in advertising about its efficacy properly subject him to discipline by the Board. 

As to Count 1, the Board established Licensee used the Device despite 

the lack of any specific training. Licensee acknowledged the Device was not 

approved by the Board or an accredited chiropractic institution. He also admitted 

the Device was a “scientific instrument” to analyze patients for which he received 

no special training. N.T. at 53; R.R. at 104a. Licensee’s testimony, even without 

corroboration by Expert’s testimony, adequately supports the Board’s findings that 

Licensee committed unprofessional conduct by using a scientific device in his 

practice without specialized training.
14

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s findings that Licensee 

engaged in false or misleading advertising (Counts 3, 4 and 5). It bears emphasis 

that each page of the Newsletter referred to Licensee as “Dr. Bennett,” and referred 

to his chiropractic patients, including several testimonials. In particular, it stated:

 

The patient who frequents the chiropractic office week after 

week or month after month for the same recurring pain is most 

likely just treating the symptoms. Although the adjustment 

feels good for a while, this pain will continue to recur until you 

deal with the cause. [...] The [Device] has allowed me to find 

the source of many pains that patients have otherwise been told 

to live with.

R.R. at 327a (emphasis added). Licensee also represented: “Computerized testing 

[with the Device] allows me to treat every patient ... never guessing about the cause 

of their illness.” R.R. at 328a. These representations suggest Licensee used the 

Device to discern causation of his patients’ illnesses or sources of pain. 

We reject Licensee’s contentions that the Board disregarded evidence 

of the disclaimer. It made findings as to its content and its location in the Newsletter. 

See F.F. Nos. 16-17. In reviewing the Newsletter, the Board was permitted to consider 

the patient testimonials and misleading impressions from same as having more impact 

on the reader, creating overall false impressions that would not be allayed by the 

disclaimer. Licensee draws this Court’s attention to no authority that inclusion of a 

disclaimer in an advertisement excuses foregoing misrepresentations.

4

 

4

In determining whether a reasonable person should have noticed a disclaimer in the 

commercial warranty context, courts consider the location of the disclaimer in a document, the 

size of its print and whether the disclaimer was differentiated, as by font style or color, from the 

remainder of the text. Borden, Inc. v. Advent Ink Co., 701 A.2d 255 (Pa. Super. 1997). Here, the 

disclaimer was located after an unrelated ad for bus service, in the same small print and without 

any special font differentiating it from the rest of the text so as to render it conspicuous. See

Reproduced Record at 328a. 
15

The Board had the professional expertise to consider the claims 

contained in the Newsletter, and whether they were misleading to a reader, and 

particularly the intended audience of chiropractic care or chronic pain patients. 

Batoff. Because the record supports the Board’s findings, and the findings support 

the Board’s conclusions, we uphold the Board’s disciplinary decision. King.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s order.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lawrence Charles Bennett, D.C., :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 412 C.D. 2018

:

Bureau of Professional and :

Occupational Affairs, State Board :

of Chiropractic, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8

th day of May, 2019, the order of the State Board of 

Chiropractic is AFFIRMED.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge