Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 6: Preparing for the lawsuit.

OBJECTIVE

This is the sixth article in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the plaintiffs, lead lawyer, and the events immediately before the lawsuit was filed.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 articles following a successive timeline. This article, the sixth of the series, explores the plaintiffs' stories.

RESULTS

Because of the AMA's boycott on chiropractic, chiropractors were not able to collaborate with medical physicians or refer patients to medical facilities, which resulted in restricted trade and potential harm to patients' well-being. The plaintiffs, Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, came from different regions of the United States. Each had unique experiences and were compelled to seek justice. The lead lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, was the son of a chiropractor and had witnessed the effect that the AMA's attacks on chiropractic had on his father. It took several years to gather enough resources to file the suit, which was submitted in 1976.

CONCLUSION

The conflicts that the plaintiffs experienced stimulated them to pursue a lawsuit against the AMA and other organized political medicine groups.