A woman got an adjustment from a DC at a soccer tournament and was diagnosed with a cervical disc injury several months later. What really happened?
Posted in Case Studies on Thursday, February 19, 2026
Amanda Reeves was attending her son’s out-of-town youth soccer tournament in Bangor, Maine, and approached Dr. Michael Whitaker, a chiropractor who was providing sideline care for athletes. Dr. Whitaker had set up a tent near the playing fields and was rendering treatment to players during the event. While he was working, Ms. Reeves initiated a conversation about her own neck pain, which she attributed to the long drive to the tournament, and asked if Dr. Whitaker would be able to help.
Dr. Whitaker agreed to perform a brief examination. He then rendered chiropractic treatment to Reeves without incident. She tolerated the care well, and no immediate complications were noted. However, no documentation was created regarding the examination, including informed consent, an assessment, or treatment rendered.
Subsequent Care Four Months Later
Approximately four months after the sideline treatment, Reeves presented to Dr. Carol Horras, a chiropractor in her hometown. At that time, she reported ongoing neck pain she stated had been present since the treatment received at the soccer tournament.
Dr. Horras obtained informed consent and performed a thorough, documented examination. Based on that examination, Dr. Horras rendered the same chiropractic treatments and techniques that had been provided by Dr. Whitaker at the tournament. The patient was treated on three additional visits.
When Reeves failed to improve as expected, Dr. Horras referred her for advanced imaging.
Diagnostic Findings
An MRI of Reeves’ cervical spine revealed:
- Degenerative changes
- A cervical disc bulge
Following these findings, the patient alleged that the chiropractic treatment she received at the soccer tournament was the beginning of her pain and caused the cervical disc bulge.
Litigation and Allegations
Reeves filed suit, claiming that the Dr. Whitaker’s treatment caused her cervical disc injury. The lack of documentation from the sideline encounter was cited as evidence of negligent care and failure to properly evaluate.
All treating providers, as well as defense experts, opined that Reeves’ cervical condition was long-standing and degenerative in nature, rather than acute or traumatic. They further agreed that the chiropractic treatment rendered was not contraindicated.
Although Dr. Whitaker had no medical records from the sideline encounter, the defense was able to rely heavily on Dr. Horras’ documentation. Those records demonstrated that:
- The same treatment methods were used
- The care was considered appropriate based on a documented examination
- No contraindications were present at the time of treatment
Expert Testimony
A standard-of-care expert for the defense testified that the treatment rendered was within the chiropractic standard of care and that the imaging findings were consistent with degenerative changes rather than an injury caused by chiropractic manipulation.
Settlement Demands
As discovery progressed, the plaintiff’s attorneys became aware that they faced significant challenges on causation. Favorable testimony from treating providers undermined the allegation that Dr. Whitaker caused the disc bulge. Despite this, plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly requested settlement. Dr. Whitaker refused to consent to any settlement.
Trial Outcome
The case proceeded to trial. The jury deliberated late into the night and ultimately returned a defense verdict, finding that Dr. Whitaker did not breach the standard of care in the treatment rendered.
What Can We Learn
Documentation is Essential
Even appropriate care becomes significantly harder to defend without contemporaneous records. Informal or sideline treatment settings do not eliminate the obligation to document examination, consent, and care rendered.
Degenerative Findings Do Not Equal Causation
Imaging findings must be interpreted in clinical context. Degenerative disc changes are common and do not establish that chiropractic treatment caused injury.
Subsequent Treating Records Can Be Critical
In this case, the detailed documentation the second chiropractor was instrumental in establishing that the insured’s treatment was not contraindicated and met the standard of care.
Failure to Settle Does Not Equal Increased Risk
When expert testimony and treating physician opinions strongly favor the defense, proceeding to trial may be appropriate despite litigation costs.
Sideline and Event-Based Care Carries Added Risk
Chiropractors providing care outside the office setting should have clear protocols for documentation and informed consent to reduce exposure in the event of a claim.
The most important lesson from this case is that strong expert support, favorable treating-provider testimony, and clear separation of degeneration from causation can overcome even significant documentation gaps — though those gaps unnecessarily increase risk and defense costs.