License Revocation of Tamea Rae Sisco, D.C.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
In May 2007, the Colorado State Board of Chiropractic Examiners revoked the chiropractic license of Tamea Sisco on grounds that she had "used her chiropractic license to promote a nonchiropractic enterprise." The revocation order (shown below) states that had administered intravenous treatments that were outside the scope of chiropractic. For several years, Sisco has been "clinical director" of the Excel Treatment Program, a clinic in Denver, Colorado. The clinic's program includes intravenous infusions of amino acids, vitamins, and minerals, and other substances that are claimed to help cure drug and alcohol addiction. The infusion treatment is described in U.S. Patent Application 20050287226, which Sisco filed in 2001 and continued in 2005.
In 1996, Sisco was placed on one year's probation for "negligence" and ordered to have her practice monitored. The 2007 order, however, notes that she took seven years to complete the probation.
DIVISION OF REGISTRATIONS
BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS
STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. CH 2006-0003
FINAL BOARD ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE LICENSE TO PRACTICE CHIROPRACTIC IN THE STATE OF COLORADO OF TAMEA SISCO, D.C., LICENSE NO. CHR-2835,
This matter came before the Colorado State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the "Board") for review of the Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer (the "ALJ") issued in the above-captioned case on December 26, 2006. That decision is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
On March 5, 2007, the Petitioner filed a Designation of Record. On March 23, 2007, Petitioner filed Petitioner's Exceptions to the Initial Decision.
Respondent did not file a Designation of Record. On April 6, 2007, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner's Exceptions to the Initial Decision.
On May 10, 2007, the Board considered the Initial Decision of the ALJ and the subsequent pleadings filed by the parties as noted above. Conflicts Counsel from the Office of the Attorney General was present during deliberations to advise the Board.
After consideration of the record as defined in the Petitioner's Designation of Record, the Initial Decision, and the pleadings filed by the parties, the Board unanimously entered its Final Board Order pursuant to C.R.S. §24-4-105, as follows:
1. The Findings of Fact of the ALJ are affirmed and adopted.
2. The ALl's Discussion and Conclusions of Law are affirmed and adopted, except as follows:
a. The section entitled "Sanction" on pages 9 through 1 ° is hereby stricken and replaced with the following language:
Upon violation of any of the provisions of § 12-33-117, C.R.S., the Board may issue a letter of admonition, or may revoke, suspend, grant probation on terms and conditions set by the Board, or otherwise discipline a licensee as provided by the Chiropractic Practice Act. Section 12-33-119(8), C.R.S. In lieu of license suspension, the Board may impose a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars. Section 12-33-117(1.5), C.R.S. The Board finds that a sanction of revocation of Respondent's license to practice chiropractic is appropriate.
Respondent has engaged in multiple violations of the Chiropractic Practice Act. Respondent practiced outside the scope of practice for a chiropractor by administering IV treatments to her patients at Excel. Respondent's documentation of acupuncture treatments rendered to her patients at Excel was minimal to nonexistent, to the point where she herself could not determine from those records whether acupuncture had been performed. Respondent used her chiropractic license to promote a nonchiropractic enterprise. Further, Respondent has a disciplinary history with the Board. It took Respondent seven years to complete a one-year period of Board-supervised probation.
Imposing sanctions is a discretionary function of an administrative agency, and the Board is afforded wide discretion in determining the appropriate sanction. See Colorado Real Estate Commission v. Hanegan, 947 P.2d 933, 936 (Colo. 1997). In determining an appropriate disciplinary sanction, the Board shall first consider sanctions that are necessary to protect the public. See C.R.S. § 12-33-101, et seq. The Board finds that Respondent's actions exhibit a lack of professional judgment and an inability to be regulated. The Board finds that the number and severity of Respondent's violations of the Chiropractic Practice Act demonstrate a failure and unwillingness to respect or adhere to the generally accepted standard of practice. The Board finds that the sanction of revocation is necessary to protect the public.
3. The paragraph following ·the heading "Initial Decision" on page 10 of the Initial Decision is hereby stricken and replaced with the following language:
Respondent violated § § 12-33-1 17(1)(b), (t), (w) and (ee), C.R.S., of the Chiropractic Practice Act. For these violations, the Board revokes Respondent's license to practice as a chiropractor in the state of Colorado.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the license to practice chiropractic of Tamea Sisco, D.C., is REVOKED.
This decision becomes final upon mailing. Any party adversely affected or aggrieved by any agency action may commence an action for judicial review before the Court of Appeals within forty-five (45) days after such action becomes effective.
Dated and signed this 18th day of May, 2007.
FOR THE STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS
James Thatcher, DC, President
This page was posted on August 4, 2007.