|
|
|
||
|
Top Stories 27th
Annual Convention (7/25/08)
Convention
Lecture Legislation Journal
of the American Naturopathic Medical Association (JANMA) Facts |
IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF
OREGON * * *  COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Pro Se, individually and as a representative of a class of individuals who moves this Honorable Court with Plaintiff's Complaint For Actionable Fraud and submits the following to-wit:
2. Defendant, NATIONAL COLLEGE OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE (hereinafter "NCNM") is an Oregon Post-Secondary Institution established and incorporated under Oregon Law with corporate domicile in the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah, City of Portland. 3. Defendant, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIANS (hereinafter "AANP") is an Oregon Corporation, duly registered and established under the laws of Oregon and doing business in the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah, City of Portland. 4. Defendant, COUNCIL ON NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION (hereinafter "CNME") is a District of Columbia non-profit corporation duly registered and doing business in the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah, City of Portland. Further, that Defendant "CNME" operates as a quasi-governmental agency approved by the U.S. Department of Education and is responsible for accrediting naturopathic colleges. 5. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and Plaintiff demands the right for jury trial as in accordance with the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. That while Defendant, "NCNM", purports to teach the educational material necessary for eligibility to obtain a license to practice Naturopathic Medicine through the respective State Boards, said Defendant did not represent the absolute truth in its marketing & Catalogue information (see Exhibit "A") about the "licensing/practice rights" within the rest of the United States and used a means of fraudulent inducement as said deceptive material states - "Naturopathic physicians practice in virtually every state and Canadian province under various legal provisions ...". When in fact, the actual reality is that Naturopathic Physicians are only allowed to practice in a handful of States and not as deceptively advertised or claimed in Defendant's catalogue and marketing material. 7. That the "perceived truth" as marketed by Defendant, NCNM, and what the reality of this information meant personally to Plaintiff, set a stage of "inducement" whereby Plaintiff truly believed that after receiving the beneficial training and education from Defendant, NCNM, that Naturopathic Physicians are able to practice in every state, as general/family health care practitioners and are also recognized as "primary care" physicians, a medical title designation, normally only reserved for allopaths or osteopaths. This state of belief was based at all times upon Defendant's representations found in their catalogue, correspondence and communications done with Plaintiff. Though, as time would tell, Defendant NCNM's representations were not to be correct or the absolute truth, and are in fact FALSE & MISLEADING declarations. Therefore, Defendant, NCNM, knowingly and intentionally made, printed, distributed and/or published materially misleading or untruthful advertising about its college and the profession of Naturopathy. Also, that the false representations made by Defendant, NCNM were of such caliber and magnitude with respect to the overall professional standing and practice rights for Naturopathy as to reasonably influence and/or induce potential students to come to study at Defendant's college. 8. That originally Plaintiff was a student interested in the naturopathic profession and would assert that same was intentionally misled into believing that by attending Defendant, NCNM, and receiving their Doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) degree that Plaintiff would NOW be in a position to be recognized nationally as a medical provider at the level of a general/family health care practitioner and as a "primary care" provider. Also, it was asserted to Plaintiff that based upon the training taught by Defendant, that Plaintiff in their practice would be able to perform "minor surgical" procedures on par and consistent with regular medical physicians (ie., M.D.'s or D.O.'s). This is not the truth as less than a handful of states allow naturopathic practitioners to perform any surgical procedure or be recognized as general/family health care practitioners. It is to be noted that only one (1) state directly recognizes naturopathic practitioners as "primary care" physicians (ie., Oregon). Thus, all information and assertions by Defendant, NCNM, to Plaintiff were totally puffed up or inflated in nature, content and substance. Also, it should be noted that all of Defendant's false material was well printed and distributed throughout the U.S. giving rise to federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the educational contract between Plaintiff and Defendant was never entered into in "good faith". 9. That the historic facts in this matter are outlined as follows, Plaintiff in late 1987 while living in New York State explored post-graduate professional training options and through telephonic conversations and correspondence mailings which included brochure type material from Defendant, became interested in the Naturopathic Profession. Consequently, Plaintiff contacted Defendant NCNM for further information about Naturopathic Medicine and the College itself. In turn, Defendant "NCNM" sent Plaintiff further information about the profession of Naturopathy and its College which included the college catalogue approved by Defendant "CNME". Consequently, as a direct result of the information and the content contained in Defendant's material, Plaintiff was directly induced into matriculating into Defendant's program in September of 1988 and completed their education and training to receive the Doctorate degree in Naturopathic Medicine (1993) only to understand too late that said profession was only recognized in approximately seven (7) states. Further, that the actual practice rights and privileges for the naturopathic practitioner differ greatly from state to state and is as different as night is to day. That with the exception of the one (1) state (ie., Oregon), the naturopathic practitioner is not recognized as a general/family practitioner or as a "primary care" provider. In fact, since about 1987, the education and training received by naturopathic students within the area of emergency medicine/trauma has been found by States looking to provide licensure standards for naturopaths as totally inadequate to allow the naturopathic practitioner to be a "primary care provider". See, attached Exhibit "B" - State of Nebraska Department of Health Report on this subject. Therefore, even while knowing this factual reality, Defendant, NCNM, by and through its Board and Agents conspired to devise a marketing campaign to attract potential students interested in the Naturopathic Profession without doing "full disclosure" about the actual status of said profession which in and of itself is intentional "fraud and deceit". 10. That based upon Defendant, NCNM's, puffed up and deceitful advertising, Plaintiff truly believed that after graduation, Plaintiff would be able to go anywhere in the U.S. & Canada and be able to open up their practice for the public's betterment. Additionally, Defendant NCNM referred Plaintiff to Defendant AANP, who whole-heartedly concurred alleviating any of Plaintiff's doubts. This was not to be and in all reality, unless Plaintiff wishes to break the law, practice within limited jurisdictions or in a very limited practice, Plaintiff NOW has a nearly useless degree. Wherefore, this absolute truth regarding professional training and practice rights were not truly found in Defendant's 1987/1988 marketing material which is what Defendant enticed Plaintiff with and what Plaintiff relied on in making their decision to attend Defendant's program. Thus, Plaintiff would assert that this gives rise to multiple claims including fraudulent representations, fraud and of detrimental reliance for this matter, as well as deliberate conspiracy. Further, from the years 1988 - 1993 Defendant NCNM continued the puffed-up deceitful plan in the classroom. See Exhibit AA. 11. That with their approval by U.S. Department of Education (hereinafter "USDE"), Defendant "CNME" became USDE's accrediting arm for colleges of naturopathy and as such, Defendant "CNME" did provisionally accredit Defendant "NCNM" in 1987. Also, as part of accrediting the colleges of naturopathy, Defendant "CNME" was obligated pursuant to USDE's rules and regulations for ensuring that the colleges of naturopathy were in full compliance with said rules and regulations. Thus, it was Defendant, CNME's, duty and obligation to ensure that Defendant, NCNM was at all times representing itself and its marketing information properly. This was not to be the case and Defendant, CNME, failed its mission as found in both 20 U.S.C. SS 1058 et at. and the corresponding CFR at SS 602.17(e) which states: "determining the extent to which institutions or programs broadly and accurately publicize, particularly in representations directed to prospective students ...." 12. That Defendant, CNME, as the "USDE" accreditor of the naturopathic programs is responsible for ensuring that the representations of the college made by Defendant, NCNM, were at all times in compliance with the law and not contrary to public form. This was not the case, subsequently both Defendant's, CNME & NCNM are directly responsible for allowing fraudulent solicitation material and misrepresentations to be distributed to prospective students, of which Plaintiff was at the time. Further, as Defendant, NCNM purports to train students in the health care arena, should not Defendant have also known about their duty and responsibility of complying with full disclosure laws? This was not the case as Defendant willfully and wantonly did and still continues to intentionally pervert the truth in this matter by sending and/or giving misleading information or concealing material facts about the naturopathic profession to inquiring students. Further, Plaintiff would assert that this is not a case of "caveat emptor" but a case of "caveat venditor" as Defendant, NCNM, has used fraud & deceit approved by Defendant CNME, to induce Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals into attending Defendant, NCNM's program. It should be further noted that Defendant, NCNM, with its current Internet Website continues to profess training in the realm of "general family practice" which as shown above belongs solely to the doctrine of the M.D. or D.O. practitioner. 13. That Defendant, AANP, is also involved with this educational matter and it should be known that both the professional and student membership in this association comes directly from students in naturopathic colleges accredited by Defendant, CNME which includes Defendant, NCNM. The reality is that this Defendant is basically the behind the scenes entity and driving force for the matters complained of. Discovery will show that the majority of all associates of Defendant corporations are graduates of Defendant NCNM and that said associates on behalf of the named Defendant Corporations conspired with one another in this grand scheme of educational fraud. 14. Defendant, AANP, in their membership material potentially encourages members to break the law in the states where Naturopathy has NO law or licensing statute which affirms Plaintiff's contention as proffered in Paragraph 10. As the court knows, practicing medicine or holding ones self out as a physician without a license in this day and age is a "felony" and accordingly, Defendant, AANP, is willfully encouraging and educating its members to break the law. This fact is seen in attached Exhibit "C" and, if this is not Defendant, AANP's, position, then why tell members to first get a license in jurisdictions that licenses naturopathic physicians? The best counseling is to tell all members to not practice in said jurisdictions in the first place or to use the legislative process. 15. That for the record, Plaintiff was induced into a contractual relation with Defendant "NCNM" by the information directly provided by Defendant "NCNM" which additionally was approved by Defendant CNME and if the absolute truth were known from the very beginning when Defendant "NCNM" first solicited Plaintiff to attend their program, then Plaintiff would never have contracted to attend Defendant "NCNM's" program. It was always Plaintiff's intention to return to his home state of New York to practice his chosen profession. Defendant NCNM was always aware of Plaintiff's intention and failed to inform him that this could never happen. Accordingly, Plaintiff would additionally assert that this matter involves a claim of "detrimental reliance" on the part of the representations and or omissions made by Defendant "NCNM" at all times which includes instruction in the classroom. Thus, Defendant "NCNM" is to be held accountable directly for all illegal actions of fraud done in this instance and Defendant "CNME" is to be held negligent in its delegated duties by allowing Defendant "NCNM" to perpetrate the fraud and deceit committed. 16. Therefore, when one looks at all the facts in this matter, it becomes clear that Plaintiff was fraudulently induced into attending Defendant "NCNM's" program based upon Defendant's own written assertions provided in its 1987/88 College Catalogue which was approved by Defendant "CNME" when in fact, said representations were actually misrepresentations of the truth when both Defendant's should have known better. Also, that as Plaintiff was a victim of fraud, then Plaintiff should be compensated for the cost of the program and the loss of income and livelihood taken away from Plaintiff due to Defendant's actions. Further, while Plaintiff would assert that Defendant, NCNM, should have known better, the reality is that the other named Defendant's are also responsible for allowing and continuing to allow the academic fraud complained of to continue. WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PAYS: 1. For general damages against Defendant "NCNM" in this matter in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AN FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.); 2. For punitive damages against Defendant "NCNM" in this matter in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AN FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.); 3. For general damages against Defendant "CNME" in this matter in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AN FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.); 4. For punitive damages against Defendant "CNME" in this matter in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AN FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.); 5. For general damages against Defendant "AANP" in this matter in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AN FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.); 6. For punitive damages against Defendant "AANP" in this matter in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AN FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (U.S.); and 7. For any other
relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Respectfully submitted this 14th
day of July, 1998. |
||
