Positions: LDS status unknown, Unknown position, - During crime: Unknown position,
- Mission:
unknown - Alleged:
Multiple victims, Unknown number of victims,
Criminal case(s): Convicted, Ongoing, Prison, Registered sex offender, Released, - Alleged church actions: unknown,
updated Jul 11, 2026 - request update | add info
arrested in 2026 while being a registered sex offender with two previous convictions for offenses at places of employment
Positions: 
Alleged:
Criminal case(s): 
Reese Riggin was a Mormon church member, chiropractor and business owner in Montana.
From the 1990s to the 2020s, Riggin faced multiple professional disciplinary actions and criminal convictions related to sexual misconduct.
Riggin’s Idaho chiropractic license was revoked in 1997 following complaints of misconduct.
Riggin was convicted in Idaho of sexual exploitation by a medical care provider (1999) and later convicted in Montana of felony sexual intercourse without consent (2016).
Multiple attempts to obtain or reinstate chiropractic licensure in Montana and Washington were denied due to Riggin’s history.
Riggin was arrested on June 25, 2026, amid new allegations of inappropriately touching girls.
Case Timeline
August 6, 1997: Three complaints filed against Riggin in Idaho.
September 9, 1997: Idaho chiropractic license revoked.
At the time, a form asked if criminal charges pending, plead guilty, forfeited a bond, been convicted of a crime, including plea, no contest or deferred. Yes, was Riggin’s answer.
April 1, 1999: Idaho conviction — pleaded guilty to amended charge of Sexual Exploitation by a Medical Care Provider. Sentenced to two years probation, including 90 days jail (80 suspended).
2001: Completed probation in Idaho.
February 20, 2001: Washington State chiropractic license application denied.
October 12, 2001: Montana chiropractic exam application denied.
September 27, 2006: Montana denied applications to reinstate chiropractic license, citing insufficient evidence of rehabilitation.
On or around December 6, 2006: Riggin applied for Montana chiropractic license and disclosed prior disciplinary actions and criminal history.
Disciplinary action on license: yes
August 7, 2006: Idaho criminal charges formally dismissed.
August 2016: Montana conviction — sentenced to 20 years in the Department of Corrections (15 years suspended) for felony sexual intercourse without consent.
November 2017: Released from custody and placed on parole.
August 2021: Began serving the suspended portion of the Montana sentence.
June 25, 2026: Arrested on new allegations of inappropriately touching girls.
If you have any information about Riggin’s LDS membership history please contact us.
Have any info on this case? Contact FLOODLIT.
Sources
- Riggin arrested due to new allegations of inappropriately touching girls,
- Reese Russell Riggin,
- Reese Russell Riggin,
- Great Falls Chiropractor Arrested on Charges of Sexual Intercourse without Consent,
- Former chiropractor gets 5 years for sexually assault,
- Ex-Great Falls chiropractor pleads guilty to sex assault,
- Sign in Riggin paroled from Montana State Prison ,
- Reese Riggin, Big Sky Chiropractor Released on Bail,
- Chiropractor Riggin signs plea deal on intercourse without consent charge,
- Chiropractor accepts plea deal in sex assault case,
- Former chiropractor admits to intercourse without consent,
- Reese Riggin,
- Former chiropractor admits to sexual intercourse without consent,
- Great Falls Chiropractor’s License Revoked Over Sex Assault Allegations ,
- Great Falls chiropractor arrested Wednesday evening,
- Great Falls Chiropractor sentenced 20 years,
- Chiropractor Riggin sentenced to 20 years in rape case,
- Prev Previous Previous Medical Examiner identifies woman found dead in Upriver Fire Medical Examiner identifies woman found dead in Upriver Fire SPOKANE, Wash. -- The human remains found in a burned home d… Next Next Up Next Up Washington Attorney General opposes Avista's proposed utility rate increases for customers Washington Attorney General opposes Avista's proposed utilit… SPOKANE, Wash. -- Washington Attorney General Nick Brown is … Great Falls chiropractor’s license revoked ,
- BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS STATE OF MONTANA IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 2012-CHI-LIC-12 REGARDING: THE PROPOSED DISCIPLINARY ) Case No. 280-2014 TREATMENT OF THE LICENSE OF ) REESE R. RIGGIN, ) Chiropractor, License No. 1181.,
- Reese Riggins,
- Before The Board of Chiropractors Department of Labor Industry,
- BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY STATE OF MONTANA,
-
1. Riggin arrested due to new allegations of inappropriately touching girls
Reese Riggin was arrested June 25 after the Cascade County Attorney’s Office filed a motion to revoke his suspended sentence based on new allegations of inappropriately touching young girls at an end of the school year event at Meadow Lark Elementary School.
Riggin was convicted on a felony count of sexual intercourse without consent and sentenced in August 2016 to a 20-year commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections with 15 years suspended.
He was released in November 2017 and placed on parole. He began serving the suspended portion of his sentence in August 2021, according to court documents.
On June 24, Judge David Grubich issued an arrest warrant with a $150,000 bond, including conditions that he stay away from the victims and all Great Falls Public Schools property and any children under 18.
Midence charged with PFMA while on bail in felony case
He was arrested in Spokane where he was attending a 3-on-3 youth basketball tournament, according to the Cascade County Attorney’s Office. He’ll be transported back to Great Falls to appear in court.
Riggin is a registered Tier 2 sex offender in Montana, which means the risk of a repeat sexual offense is moderate, according to the Montana Department of Justice.
In their June 23 filing, the county attorney’s office included the report of violation from Montana Probation and Parole and letters from parents of the girls involved.
Tim Hides, the probation officer, wrote that the Great Falls Police Department had received reports that Riggin had inappropriately touched children at a climbing wall during an event at Meadowlark Elementary on June 3.
Hides wrote that Riggin violated his condition of complying with all laws and “conduct myself as a good citizen,” report any arrests or contact with law enforcement to his probation officer within 72 hours.
Hides wrote that his reported behavior at Meadowlark was not that of a good citizen.
One child reported that Riggin had curved his hand up her side making her feel unsafe and didn’t know who he was. A second child reported that Riggin brushed his hand from her hip to her sports bra and made her feel uncomfortable and scared.
Hides wrote that Riggin is a registered offender with two prior convictions for sexual offenses and places of employment.
Thompkins accused of harboring, having sex with teen runaways
“Again, we have very questionable behavior involving employment,” Hides wrote.
Since starting his suspended sentence in 2021, Riggin has owned several businesses with his wife involving minor children, Hides wrote, and he’d received several complaints during that time of Riggin being around children.
Hides wrote that he advised those complainants that Riggin could be around children at his places of work.
Hides wrote that he was recently contacted by a parent from a gymnastics gym in Hamilton that Riggin was around children and had yelled at her when she raised her concerns to Riggin. She wrote that she contacted SafeSport, a governing agency for youth sports, asking that Riggin be trespassed from the gym, according to Hides’ report.
Riggin had one violation under supervision since his release, Hides wrote, in admitting that he looked at pornography of adult women at one of his businesses, for which he received a verbal warning.
Hides wrote in his report that he recommended an arrest warrant be issued for Riggin to appear in court to determine if he’d violated the terms of his suspended sentence.
If the court finds Riggin in violation, Hides wrote that he recommended Riggin be placed at the Montana State Prison and that the recommended conditions regarding contact with children from the original pre-sentence investigation be imposed.
“The circumstances of this violation are of concern. [Riggin] is a Tier 2 sexual offender who has two prior convictions for sexual offenses and he is assisting children with harnesses in a private area. According to the parents, [Riggin] had no reason to have his hands anywhere near the girl’s breasts or under arms as the harnesses go around the girls’ waists. [Riggin’s] actions put these girls in fear by the way he touched them. The devastation can be seen” Hides wrote, in the letters from the parents of the girls involved.
Judge Dirk Sandefur included the following conditions his August 2016 sentencing order:
[Riggin] shall not employ, supervise, care for, treat, or otherwise exercise any form of direct or indirect control over any non-family female persons.
[Riggin] shall not be on site during business hours at any family business or any other family business he may have a family interest in that has female patrons or employees.But in November 2016, at [Riggin’s] request, Sandefur issued an order that [Riggin] “shall not hold direct supervisory control over any non-family female employees, but he shall be allowed to interact in public places with patrons of the business.”
The conflict between the initial and amended conditions has caused challenges for probation officers, according to the county attorney’s office.
One of the mothers wrote that she was volunteering at the sixth-grade end-of-year party at her daughter’s school, Meadowlark Elementary, on June 3.
Near the end of the event, her daughter said she’d been touched inappropriately by the man working the Flippin’ Family Fun rock-climbing wall, according to the letter.
“Her face was pale, stoic, and she was uncontrollably shaking,” the mother wrote.
Other sixth-grade girls made similar reports, the mother wrote, and she informed the school principal.
She wrote that she searched him online after the incident and was “shocked” to find he’s a local convicted sex offender.
“I still cannot understand how this man was given access to my daughter and these girls at school. How is this man, who is known to have sexually assaulted multiple women, in multiple states, able to continue harming and traumatizing victims,” she wrote. “The worst part is knowing that this easily could have been prevented.”
Allery changes plea in sex trafficking case [2025]
The mother wrote that there was clear video footage of Riggin “running his hand up and
down the body of my 12-year-old daughter’s sports bra, exactly in the manner described and I want to know what is going to be done to protect her and others from this man.”Parents of the second girl wrote that their daughter was looking forward to the event but was instead made to feel uncomfortable by a grown adult.
“This man was to keep her safe as she was going on a rock wall. He was to ensure her harness was safe for her to climb, instead he touched her where the harness was not located,” they wrote.
The girl talked to a trusted adult at school, but didn’t tell her parents. After school that night, “She was different. She was angry with everything and everyone,” they wrote.
Tome reaches plea agreement in 2016 rape case; released, designated Tier 3 sex offender [2024]
The next day, they received a phone call from the school explaining what had happened and that the matter was being referred to GFPD.
After that, the girl asked her mom if she believed her.
“That gutted me, she was more terrified that no one would believe her, that she internalized it. Internalizing it was no longer an option at school, she had to tell us. As her parents, we are incredibly angry. She was supposed to be safe and having the time of her life at one of the last major events at her elementary school and that was robbed from her. She has cried randomly since that day and we have made sure she feels safe, loved and seen, but this has made her second-guess a lot of things. This man took her confidence and security with everyday interactions and squashed them,” they wrote. “We understand that some of the school officials recognized this man but did not communicate with the principal to have him removed. I also do not understand how he was allowed to be in that setting with his history. We don’t want this to happen to any other child or adult; he needs to be taken seriously in our judicial system as well as with our school system. The systems that are as much responsible needs to step up at this time as scenarios as these that have happened to our child could be much worse if allowed to continue.”
Lance Boyd and Jackie Mainwaring, GFPS assistant superintendents, told The Electric that they were made aware of the incident afterward.
They said law enforcement was notified immediately and administrators talked with the parents of the students involved.
“This behavior is not okay with us,” Mainwaring said and thanked GFPD and the county attorney’s office for taking the reports seriously.
They said school staff and PTA members weren’t expecting the vendor to stay on site when they rented the climbing wall for the end-of-year celebration, but reviewed the incident during their end-of-year team meeting recently. Boyd said they emphasized the due diligence and protocols that needed to be followed for having third-party vendors at events on school grounds during school hours.
Share this: -
2. Reese Russell Riggin
Level : 2
Designation : SexualPHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Age : 59
Sex : Male
Height : 5.10"
Weight : 160
Race : Caucasian
Hair Color : Brown
Eye Color : BrownOFFENSES
Offense : Sexual Intercourse Without Consent
Date Convicted : 01-01-1970
Offense Count : 1
Docket Number : CDC-14-392(D)REGISTRATION DETAILS
Collected From : Montana State Registry
ALIAS
Riggin, Reese
VEHICLE INFO
Plate #
[REDACTED] GREAT FALLS, MT 59404
Address Date : (01/01/1970) ?
-
3. Reese Russell Riggin
Photo Date: 12/6/2024
Riggin, Reese Russell 60 year old Male
Date of birth: 6/1/1966
Offender Type: Sexual, Level 2
Also known as: Riggin, Reese
Known Addresses:
[REDACTED] GREAT FALLS MT 59404 (CASCADE COUNTY)
Registration Agency: Cascade County Sheriff, (406) 454-6820
Source: Montana Sexual or Violent Offender Registry
Record Updated: 6/8/2026
Physical Description Last Updated:11/9/2017
Race: Caucasian
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Brown
Height/Weight: 5'10" / 160lbs
Vehicles:- 2012 Black Ford F350 Pickup MT Plate # WEJUMP
- 2002 Black Chevrolet Suburban
- 2011 Four Winds Camping
- 2021 Blue Toyota Avalon
- 2017 Silver Toyota SiennaOffense(Sentenced: 8/11/2016)
Montana Statute: Sexual Intercourse Without Consent | Counts: 1
Court Case: CDC-14-392(D)
Victim: 22 year old Female -
4. Great Falls Chiropractor Arrested on Charges of Sexual Intercourse without Consent
According to the Cascade County Sheriff's Department, Great Falls chiropractor Reese Riggin was arrested and booked on a charge of sexual intercourse without consent Wednesday night.
On August 7th, Riggin had his professional license revoked for inappropriately touching female employees and making sexual comments to them.
According to reports, Riggin has been in trouble before. He had his license suspended in Idaho in the late 1990's after similar allegations surfaced.
KFBB will continue to follow this story and update details as they become available.
-
5. Former chiropractor gets 5 years for sexually assault
GREAT FALLS, Mont. (AP) — A former Great Falls chiropractor who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting an employee has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.
The Great Falls Tribune reports (http://gftrib.com/2aZR4oP ) District Judge Dirk Sandefur sentenced 48-year-old Reese Riggin on Thursday after expressing frustration with the binding plea agreement that he felt was too lenient.
The Montana Board of Chiropractors revoked Riggin's license two years ago after former employees reported he touched them inappropriately during adjustments he required under the terms of their employment.
He was charged in October 2014 and pleaded guilty in March to sexual intercourse without consent. The agreement called for a 20-year sentence with 15 suspended.
Riggin lost his chiropractic license in Idaho over similar allegations in 1997. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual exploitation by a medical care provider.
-
6. Ex-Great Falls chiropractor pleads guilty to sex assault
GREAT FALLS, Mont. - A former Great Falls chiropractor has changed his plea to guilty in connection with the sexual assault of an employee.Reese Riggin pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent as part of a plea deal. The agreement has prosecutors recommending a 20-year prison sentence with 15 years suspended.Riggin is accused of sexually assaulting an employee during a chiropractic adjustment he required her to receive as part of her employment. The victim worked for Riggin from 2009-2010.Riggin's attorney, Meghan Sutton, requested the sentencing hearing be held in the fall. She says the defense is in the process of having a psychosexual evaluation completed.The judge indicated the hearing will likely be scheduled in the summer.
-
7. Sign in Riggin paroled from Montana State Prison
Reese Riggin, a former Great Falls chiropractor who was convicted on a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, has been paroled.
According to the Montana Department of Corrections, Riggin was released from the Montana State Prison last week.
In August 2016, Riggin was sentenced to 20 years in prison, with 15 of the years suspended.
-
8. Reese Riggin, Big Sky Chiropractor Released on Bail
Reese Riggin of Big Sky Chiropractic turned himself in to authorities at the Great Falls Police station last night. He was supposed to make an initial appearance in court today, but that was moved to tomorrow due to him bonding out this morning. The court documents we saw said bail was set at $100,000
Riggin had his license revoked earlier this summer by the Montana Board of chiropractors after being accused sexual misconduct by an employee. According to documents, Riggin previously had his license revoked in Idaho because of similar allegations. On September 4th, Big Sky Chiropractic's Facebook page had a post on it saying that on Monday Sept. 8th, Mountain View Chiropractic would be moving into the Big Sky chiropractic office on Smelter Avenue in Great Falls. We will continue to follow this case and release more details as they become available.
-
9. Chiropractor Riggin signs plea deal on intercourse without consent charge
A former Great Falls chiropractor facing a rape charge for his alleged conduct with an employee has signed a plea agreement with the state.
Reese Riggin, 48, is accused of digitally penetrating a female employee during a chiropractic adjustment at Big Sky Chiropractic on an undisclosed date between 2009 and 2010 as a mandatory condition of the woman’s employment.
Court documents show Riggin signed a plea agreement document March 2 that calls for Riggin to plead guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent, a felony.
In exchange for his plea, the state is recommending a 20 years in the Montana State Prison with 15 years suspended. The state also agrees not to seek revocation of the $100,000 bond Riggin posted after his arrest.
Riggin’s trial was scheduled to begin Monday before District Judge Dirk Sandefur. A change of plea hearing will be held Monday instead.
Sandefur ruled evidence of prior sexual misconduct allegations against Riggin by former employees in Idaho would be allowed at trial. The defense asked the Montana Supreme Court to take over the case after that ruling, but the request was denied.
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the justices felt the regular appeal process would be sufficient if there was a legal problem with Sandefur’s decision. Riggin will give up his right to appeal if he changes his plea in court.
-
10. Chiropractor accepts plea deal in sex assault case
GREAT FALLS, Mont. - A former Great Falls chiropractor charged with sexually assaulting an employee has reached a plea deal with the state.Reese Riggin, 48, signed a plea agreement March 2 that calls for him to plead guilty to sexual intercourse without consent. In exchange, prosecutors are recommending a 20-year prison sentence with 15 years suspended.Riggin's trial had been scheduled to start Monday, but a change of plea hearing will take place instead.Riggin is accused of sexually assaulting an employee during a chiropractic adjustment he required her to receive as part of her employment. The victim worked for Riggin from 2009-2010.Riggin's chiropractic license was revoked in Idaho in 1997 after similar sexual assault allegations there.His Montana license was revoked in August 2014.
-
11. Former chiropractor admits to intercourse without consent
A former Great Falls chiropractor accused of rape for his conduct with a female employee changed his plea in court Monday morning.
Reese Riggin, 48, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent through a plea agreement with the state.
Riggin admitted to digitally penetrating a female employee during an adjustment at Big Sky Chiropractic on an undisclosed date between 2009 and 2010. Court documents say adjustments for employees were mandatory conditions of employment.
When asked whether he committed the act for sexual gratification, Riggin said he didn’t remember. Riggin said he has memory problems stemming from a brain injury he suffered in a car crash.
-
12. Reese Riggin
REESE RIGGIN: KRTV.COM IN MONTANA REPORTS GREAT FALLS CHIROPRACTOR CHARGED WITH FELONY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT CONSENT FOR ALLEGEDLY HAVING UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT WITH EMPLOYEE — 9/19/2014
Reese Riggin, the Great Falls chiropractor who recently had his license revoked by the state Board of Chiropractors, appeared in court on Friday on a charge of sexual intercourse without consent.
Riggin was arrested on Wednesday, and was released from the Cascade County Detention Center on Wednesday after posting bail on a $100,000 bond.
According to court documents, Riggin required his employees to undergo chiropractic treatment to better understand its principles and benefits.
It was during several of these treatments that Riggin allegedly touched one of his employees inappropriately and sexually.
In 1997, he also had his license revoked by the Idaho State Board of Chiropractic Physicians for sexual misconduct and he was denied an initial license in Washington four years later.
He was initially denied by the Montana Board of Chiropractors in 2001, but was granted a probationary license to practice under special conditions in 2007.
Mugshots.com : 80996058
-
13. Former chiropractor admits to sexual intercourse without consent
A former Great Falls chiropractor charged with sexually assaulting an employee changed his plea Monday.
Forty-eight-year-old Reese Riggin pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent as part of a plea agreement with the state.
Riggin admitted to sexually assaulting an employee during a chiropractic adjustment he required her to receive as part of her employment at Big Sky Chiropractic.
Riggin's license was revoked in Idaho in 1997 after similar allegations surfaced there. His Montana license was revoked in August 2014.
In the plea agreement, the state recommends a sentence of 20 years in the Montana State Prison with 15 year suspended.
The state also agreed to not seek revocation of the $100,000 bond Riggin posted after his arrest.
-
14. Great Falls Chiropractor’s License Revoked Over Sex Assault Allegations
Reese Riggin lost his chiropractic license in Idaho over similar allegations in 1997
HELENA —
The state Board of Chiropractors has revoked the license of Reese Riggin of Great Falls after two women testified he sexually assaulted them while performing chiropractic treatment he required them to receive as part of their employment.
The board ordered immediate revocation of Riggin’s license on Aug. 7 and said he cannot seek reinstatement of his license for 10 years.
Attorney Steve Reida of Bozeman told the Great Falls Tribune that Riggin, 48, denies the allegations on which the revocation was made and is considering his appeal rights.
The action against Riggin began in January 2012 when a former employee filed a complaint alleging Riggin inappropriately touched her during purported chiropractic treatments and made sexual comments and asked her personal questions about intimate relationships. The woman worked at Big Sky Chiropractic from March 2009 to September 2010.
Administrative hearings on the woman’s complaint were held in February 2014, and another former employee testified that Riggin made similar advances toward her in 2011.
Both women said they were required to undergo chiropractic treatment as part of their jobs so they could better understand and communicate the benefits of receiving regular chiropractic care to patients. Both said the treatments began normally, but progressed to inappropriate touching.
The hearings examiner also found Riggin failed to keep records of treatments given to the complainant.
Riggin lost his chiropractic license in Idaho over similar allegations by three complainants in 1997, board records said. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of sexual exploitation by a medical care provider. He was sentenced in March 1999 to 10 days in jail, a $750 fine and two years of probation.
Washington state denied Riggin’s application for a license in 2001 while later that year, the Montana Board of Chiropractors denied Riggin’s application to sit for the chiropractic examination.
The sexual exploitation charge was dismissed in August 2006 after Riggin completed the terms of his probation. Idaho denied Riggin’s application to reinstate his license in September 2006, saying they did not have enough evidence to prove he had been rehabilitated.
Montana’s board denied Riggin a license in October 2007, saying he needed to first complete an ethics and boundaries exam given by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners and undergo a psychological and psychosexual evaluation.
In February 2008, the Montana board issued him a probationary license that required he be supervised for at least one year and that he have another person in the room when he was examining or administering chiropractic treatment to female patients.
“The severe sanction of revocation is appropriate in this case based upon previous efforts at rehabilitation proving unsuccessful and the seriousness of the conduct alleged” by Riggin’s former employee, the Department of Labor and Industry Hearings Bureau found.
-
15. Great Falls chiropractor arrested Wednesday evening
A Great Falls chiropractor who had his license revoked in August for making sexual comments to and inappropriately touching female employees was arrested Wednesday evening, according to Great Falls police.
Reese Riggin had his license revoked by the Montana Board of Chiropractors on Aug. 7 in response to allegations of unprofessional conduct that included inappropriate touching, according to documents filed with the board.
As of Wednesday evening, it was unclear what criminal charges he was facing.
The unprofessional conduct involved making comments of a sexual nature to a female employee and touching her in inappropriate areas under the guise of providing chiropractic care, documents say. He was also sanctioned for failing to keep adequate patient records and was accused of similar inappropriate conduct with another female employee.
Riggin denies the allegations the license revocation is based on and is considering his appeal rights, his attorney, Steve Reida of Bozeman, said previously.
GFPD Lt. Shane Sorenson confirmed the chiropractor had been arrested Wednesday evening, but didn't immediately have additional information. A patrol officer had been dispatched to transport the suspect to jail, he said.
Riggin moved to Great Falls in 2006 and Big Sky Chiropractic, where he practiced, opened in 2008, according to the website for Big Sky Chiropractic. The practice is owned by his wife, Natalie Riggin, and he is the managing employee.
Riggin's chiropractic license was also revoked by the Idaho State Board in 1997 after he was found to have inappropriately touched female patients. On April 1, 1999, he pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation by a medical care provider and was sentenced to 90 days in jail with 80 days suspended, fined $750, required to write a letter of apology to his victims and placed on probation for two years. He completed the terms of his probation in 2001 and the criminal charges against him were dismissed Aug. 7, 2006.
Riggin's application for a license to practice as a chiropractor was denied by the state of Washington on Feb. 20, 2001, and his application to sit for the chiropractic exam was denied by the Montana Board of Chiropractors on Oct. 12, 2001. On Sept. 27, 2006, the Idaho State Board of Chiropractic Physicians denied his application for a license.
On Feb. 13, 2008, Riggin was granted a probationary license in Montana that stipulated he had to be supervised by another licensed health professional and have another person in exam rooms when he treated female patients for at least one year.
In its recommended order to suspend Riggin's license, the Montana Department of Labor & Industry Hearings Bureau said the severe sanction was appropriate in this case based on previous efforts at rehabilitation by Riggin proving unsuccessful and the seriousness of the allegations.
County Attorney John Parker declined to comment on the matter Wednesday evening.
Reach Staff Writer Eric Dietrich at 791-6527 or edietrich@greatfallstribune.com. He can also be followed on Twitter at @GFTrib_EricD.
-
16. Great Falls Chiropractor sentenced 20 years
Former Great Falls Chiropractor Reese Riggin was sentenced in Cascade County District Court Thursday on the charge of sexual intercourse without consent. Riggin made a plea agreement back in March. He plead guilty to the charge and then signed the agreement, for serving 20 years in the Montana State Prison with 15 of those suspended. After much hesitation that this sentence was not strong enough for the charges, Judge Dirk Sandefur, agreed to the agreement. However Sandefur, stated that Riggin's must register as a tier two sexual offender, which is higher than the tier one that was recommended.
Riggin admitted to sexually assaulting an employee during a chiropractic adjustment he required her to receive as part of her employment at Big Sky Chiropractic. Riggin's license was revoked in Idaho in 1997 after similar allegations surfaced there. His Montana license was revoked in August 2014.
-
17. Chiropractor Riggin sentenced to 20 years in rape case
Former Great Falls chiropractor Reese Riggin was sentenced to 20 years in prison with 15 years suspended Thursday as part of a plea deal.
Riggin, 50, was accused of digitally penetrating a female employee during a chiropractic adjustment at Big Sky Chiropractic on an undisclosed date between 2009 and 2010. The adjustments were a mandatory condition of the woman’s employment.
Charging documents accuse Riggin of sexually touching two unidentified female employees, who worked for him between 2009 and 2011, at one point allegedly penetrating one of the women’s genitalia with his finger.
He pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent in March.
During that hearing, Riggin was asked whether he committed the act for sexual gratification, and Riggin said he didn’t remember. Riggin said he has memory problems stemming from a brain injury he suffered in a car crash.Prosecutor Dan Guzynski did not call any sentencing witnesses, though he read from victim impact statements submitted by the victim in this case and another woman who would have served as a trial witness.
Guzynski said in court the second woman referenced in the charging document came forward with sexual misconduct allegations against Riggin, but the statute of limitations had passed, meaning it was too late to file a criminal charge.
“I don’t think Mr. Riggin takes responsibility for his own actions,” Guzynski read from the witness’ statement.
He went on to share the witness’s fears for her safety and the turmoil she faced after filing a civil case against Riggin.
The prosecutor indicated the woman would have testified about Riggin’s prior alleged acts of sexual abuse at trial after presiding District Court Judge Dirk Sandefur ruled the woman’s testimony as admissible, along with the testimony of three Idaho women with similar claims.
Riggin’s attorney, Meghan Lulf-Sutton asked the Montana Supreme Court to take over the case after Sandefur’s ruling on the prior acts witnesses. That request was denied.
-
18. Prev Previous Previous Medical Examiner identifies woman found dead in Upriver Fire Medical Examiner identifies woman found dead in Upriver Fire SPOKANE, Wash. -- The human remains found in a burned home d… Next Next Up Next Up Washington Attorney General opposes Avista's proposed utility rate increases for customers Washington Attorney General opposes Avista's proposed utilit… SPOKANE, Wash. -- Washington Attorney General Nick Brown is … Great Falls chiropractor’s license revoked
The state Board of Chiropractors has revoked the license of Reese Riggin of Great Falls after two women reported he sexually assaulted them while performing chiropractic treatment he required them to receive as part of their employment.
A former employee filed a complaint against Riggin in January 2012 alleging he inappropriately touched her during purported chiropractic treatments and made sexual comments and asked her personal questions about intimate relationships.
The woman worked at Big Sky Chiropractic from March 2009 to September 2010. Another former employee testified that Riggin made similar advances toward her.
Attorney Steve Reida of Bozeman says Riggin denies the allegations.
Riggin lost his chiropractic license in Idaho over similar allegations in 1997. He was granted a probationary license in Montana in February 2008. It required he had to be supervised for at least a year.
-
19. BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS STATE OF MONTANA IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 2012-CHI-LIC-12 REGARDING: THE PROPOSED DISCIPLINARY ) Case No. 280-2014 TREATMENT OF THE LICENSE OF ) REESE R. RIGGIN, ) Chiropractor, License No. 1181.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS
STATE OF MONTANA
IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 2012-CHI-LIC-12 REGARDING:
THE PROPOSED DISCIPLINARY ) Case No. 280-2014
TREATMENT OF THE LICENSE OF )
REESE R. RIGGIN, )
Chiropractor, License No. 1181. )
)PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;
AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
I. INTRODUCTIONThe Business Standards Division of the Department of Labor and Industry seeks sanctions be imposed on the chiropractor license of Dr. Reese Riggin based upon the allegation that he engaged in conduct defined under Admin. R. Mont. 24.126.2301(b) and (r) as unprofessional conduct. Prior to hearing, Dr. Riggin filed a motion for summary judgment and motions in limine, all of which were denied.
Hearing Officer Caroline A. Holien convened a contested case hearing in this matter on February 24 and February 25, 2014. The department was represented by Kevin G. Maki and Michael L. Fanning. Attorney Steve Reida represented
Dr. Riggin.The parties requested that certain witnesses be referred to by their initials in the transcript of the proceeding and the decision. Accordingly, the witnesses identified by the parties at hearing will be addressed in this decision by their initials.
Dr. Reese Riggin, K.F., B.B., A.F., L.W., P.H., Alexa Smith, John Smith, Belinda Clark, Heidi Kaufman, Compliance Specialist, Jennifer Billman, Licensing Specialist, Dr. Vincent Maddio, D.C., Dr. Gilles LaMarche, D.C., Natalie Riggin, Jamie Czech, and Julia Champenois all presented sworn testimony. All the witnesses were excluded upon the request of the parties. The parties stipulated to the admission of the transcript of Louise Smith’s deposition taken on December 18, 2013.
page 1
The parties stipulated to the admission of department Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, 14,
and 15 and Dr. Riggin’s Exhibits A, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, and K. Department Exhibits 10, 11, 16A, 16B, and 20 were admitted at the time of hearing. Riggin’s Exhibits A, C, H-1, H-2, and O-1 were also admitted at the time of hearing. Riggin’s
Exhibit G was withdrawn and not admitted.Department Exhibits 2, 6, and 10 were sealed, as were Riggin’s Exhibits A, C, F, H1, and H2, based upon a finding the information contained in those documents included personal information in which the subjects’ rights to privacy outweighed the public’s right to access that information.
The parties agreed to provide post-hearing briefs, the last of which were received April 23, 2014. The case was deemed submitted upon receipt of the final brief. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Hearing Officer makes
the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended decision.II. ISSUE
Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license of Reese R. Riggin, under the provisions of Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-136, and, if so, the proper
discipline to be taken.III. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At all times material to this complaint, Dr. Reese Riggin has been licensed by the Montana Board of Chiropractors (Board) to practice as a chiropractor, holding Montana License No. 1181.
2. The Board previously denied Dr. Riggin a full license in 2007. On February 13, 2008, the Board Chair signed a Final Order granting Dr. Riggin a license that was on probation for one year. Dr. Riggin was required to practice under
the supervision of another licensed health professional and have another person in the room when examining or administering chiropractic treatment to female patients.3. Dr. Riggin was previously licensed as a chiropractor by the State of Idaho. The Idaho State Board of Chiropractic Physicians (Idaho State Board) revoked
Dr. Riggin’s license in 1997 after finding he had violated the Chiropractic Practice Act. The Idaho State Board made the finding that Dr. Riggin had “worked on M.O.’s lower back and M.O. stated that he went down the back of her pant and ‘rubbed my butt’ under her underwear, massaging her buttocks . . . .” It also found that Dr. Riggin massaged M.O.’s chest and ran his hands over her breasts and nipples during her fourth and final treatment.Page 2
4. The Idaho State Board also made the finding that Dr. Riggin massaged J.M.’s back and the top of her buttocks . . .” [w]hen he massaged her buttocks, he massaged under her underwear to the bottom of her shorts, although he had not previously done that in the first three appointments.” It was also found Dr. Riggin touched the sides of J.M.’s breasts, massaged her upper neck, and ran his hands over her breasts and nipples. The Idaho State Board later denied Dr. Riggin’s request to reinstate his license.
5. Dr. Riggin’s wife, Natalie Riggin, is the sole shareholder of a corporation that owns Big Sky Chiropractic located in Great Falls, Montana. Dr. Riggin is the managing employee for Big Sky Chiropractic and the sole chiropractor at the practice. Dr. Riggin expects employees to strictly adhere to the employer’s policies and procedures. Dr. Riggin typically dates and retains copies of the documents he receives during the course of business, including greeting cards received from employees.
6. Dr. Riggin is a graduate of Parker College of Chiropractic and is a devoted follower of the Parker Principles, which stress the importance of living a service oriented personal and professional life. The Parker Principles encourage chiropractors to connect to their patients on a personal level, which may include hugging and inquiring about issues affecting the patient in their personal life. A motto often used by followers of the Parker Principles is “lather love lavishly.”
7. The Parker Principles encourage chiropractic staff members to undergo chiropractic treatment so they understand and can communicate the benefits of receiving regular chiropractic care.
8. Dr. Riggin uses excerpts of a handbook entitled “Fearless Chiropractic,” which includes the statement: “. . . it is necessary that you be under regular chiropractic care. Your personal chiropractic care is therefore complimentary and a job benefit. You will receive the same quality of care as any patient.”
9. K.F. is a 25-year-old woman, who worked as a chiropractic assistant for Big Sky Chiropractic from March 2009 through September 20, 2010. K.F.’s duties included answering the phone, scheduling patients, processing insurance forms, and other clerical duties as assigned. K.F. rarely assisted Dr. Riggin in providing care to patients. K.F. understood she was required to receive chiropractic treatment from Dr. Riggin as part of her employment at Big Sky Chiropractic.
10. K.F. sought employment at Big Sky Chiropractic, because it would give her bonus points in her application to physical therapy school. K.F. was working at completing her prerequisite course work for physical therapy school at the time of her 3 employment with Big Sky Chiropractic. K.F. discussed her aspiration to become a physical therapist with Dr. Riggin prior to being offered the position. K.F. was initially denied admission into physical therapy school. K.F. subsequently obtained an Associates of Applied Science from the College of Technology in Great Falls, Montana. K.F. is currently licensed by the State of Montana as a Physical Therapist.
11. K.F.’s work day at Big Sky Chiropractic typically ran from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Dr. Riggin usually saw his last patient for the day between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Natalie Riggin did not work a set schedule at the practice but was usually in the office three days per week. K.F. and Dr. Riggin typically worked alone at the end of the business day.
12. On March 4, 2009, K.F. filled out new patient information, which included signing a statement that she read Big Sky Chiropractic’s informed consent and payment policy. The informed consent explained the possible risks associated with receiving chiropractic treatment and indicated that the undersigned understood the described risk and consented to treatment. K.F. also provided a summary of her medical history, which included information about burns that she had sustained along the outside of her right leg and torso at the age of four and her subsequent physical therapy and skin grafts. K.F. also reported regular neck and back pain, as well as headaches and dizziness. Dr. Riggin conducted an initial examination of K.F. approximately one week after the start of her employment.
13. From March 16, 2009 through September 22, 2009, K.F. received approximately 36 treatments from Dr. Riggin. K.F.’s treatment sessions were typically held at the end of the business day when no other staff members were
present. Dr. Riggin also treated K.F. during the business day if another patient cancelled. K.F. was not required to include herself on the patient schedule prior to receiving treatment from Dr. Riggin.14. Dr. Riggin used an activator tool and adjusted K.F. over her clothing during her initial treatments. Each session lasted between 10 and 15 minutes, which was the typical length of other patients’ treatment sessions. K.F. did not experience any benefit as a result of these treatments but did not feel uncomfortable while receiving the treatment.
15. K.F. began to feel uncomfortable during the treatment sessions approximately three to five months into her employment. Dr. Riggin used a trigger point technique on K.F. at one point that “started on [her] low back and then it turned, progressively over time, it turned into like massage type of procedure . . . .” Hrg. Transcript. Vol. 1, 45:18-21. Dr. Riggin progressed beyond K.F.’s lower back until he touched her buttocks. Dr. Riggin massaged K.F.’s buttocks on 15 to 20
Page 4
different occasions during sessions that lasted between 15 and 30 minutes. Dr. Riggin also provided treatment to K.F. for her neck, which progressed to his massaging her breasts under her shirt and bra for “minutes.” K.F. did not ask for or seek this type of touching from Riggin. K.F. did not express discomfort at Dr. Riggin’s touching because she was scared.
16. In June 2009, Dr. Riggin began administering burn scar treatment to K.F., which included massaging the affected areas in an attempt to make the area less stiff and promote healing. K.F. initially resisted Dr. Riggin’s repeated requests to attempt burn scar treatment on her scars, which were more than 15 years old at that time. K.F.’s scars extend from her right upper to mid-thigh down past her right knee. The scars extend to a bit toward the inner thigh and down the back of the thigh. The scars on K.F.’s torso begin on her lower torso near her navel and up to her mid-bodybelow her right breast. Dr. Riggin had never before attempted burn scar treatment.K.F. ultimately relented and received approximately seven burn scar treatments from Dr. Riggin.
17. Dr. Riggin’s burn scar treatment escalated to his massaging K.F.’s right breast and her vagina. Dr. Riggin massaged K.F.’s vagina between five and 10 timesunder her underwear. Dr. Riggin used his finger to penetrate K.F.’s vagina on oneoccasion in May or June 2010. K.F. told her sister, A.F., about what had happened shortly after the first incident. K.F. appeared to her sister to be upset and hysterical when she first reported what had happened. K.F. did not report the situation to law enforcement, despite A.F.’s encouragement, because she was scared and embarrassed. K.F. continued working for Dr. Riggin despite her discomfort with his conduct because she felt “trapped” due to her financial situation and desire to get into thephysical therapy program.
18. Dr. Riggin again used his finger to penetrate K.F.’s vagina in late July 2010. K.F. stopped accepting chiropractic treatment from Dr. Riggin altogether after the final incident.
19. Dr. Riggin initially maintained Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan (SOAP) notes as part of K.F.’s treatment record. Dr. Riggin changed to using a travel card, which was a simpler form of a treatment record. Dr. Riggin then moved onto maintaining treatment records on a computer that was located in a room near the examination rooms. Dr. Riggin lost, without explanation, K.F.’s treatment card. K.F. never observed Dr. Riggin preparing treatment notes during her care. K.F. never saw a patient file under her name with the other patient files that she was required to pull for Dr. Riggin.
Page 5
20. The treatment record for K.F. that Dr. Riggin did produce for the department included some inconsistencies. For example, a SOAP note treatment record for June 1, 2009 contains no information. Many of the entries in K.F.’s treatment record are illegible and include conflicting dates.
21. Dr. Riggin made several comments to K.F. during her employment regarding her personal relationships, such as asking if she “put out” on a first date. Dr. Riggin also commented about his sexual activities to K.F. Dr. Riggin made unwanted visits to K.F.’s home and appeared uninvited to one of her softball games. In February 2010, Dr. Riggin advised K.F. that he would talk to her landlord, who was a personal friend of his, about evicting her if he ever saw her boyfriend’s vehicle parked overnight in her driveway. K.F. complained to a friend’s father during this period that she was uncomfortable with Dr. Riggin’s hugging her. Dr. Riggin also grabbed K.F.’s buttocks while at work and claimed it was an accident.
22. K.F. referred several friends and family members to Dr. Riggin during her employment. K.F. referred people to Dr. Riggin’s practice due to his promise of giving her a bonus if she referred a certain number of people to his practice.
23. Dr. Riggin prohibited employees from using their cell phone while at work. On March 31, 2010 and September 15, 2010, K.F. received warnings for violating Dr. Riggin’s no cell phone policy at work. On September 15, 2010, Dr. Riggin observed K.F. texting her mother at the end of the day. Dr. Riggin suspended K.F. without pay the next day. Dr. Riggin had not exacted such a severe punishment on any other employee for similar behavior.
24. On or about September 21, 2010, K.F. informed Dr. Riggin she was quitting effective immediately. K.F.’s mother accompanied her to the office to collect her belongs after K.F. told her mother about the previous incidents with Dr. Riggin.
25. B.B. is a 25-year-old woman who worked as a chiropractic assistant for Big Sky Chiropractic from July 2011 through November 2011. B.B. holds a four-year degree from Eastern Washington University.
26. B.B. understood she was required to receive chiropractic treatment from Dr. Riggin as part of her employment with Big Sky Chiropractic.
27. Dr. Riggin initially used an activator tool and a TENS unit while providing chiropractic treatment to the neck and back of B.B. Dr. Riggin began touching B.B. on her lower back that felt more like a massage. Dr. Riggin eventually touched B.B.’s buttocks under her clothing in a “massage-like motion.” Dr. Riggin 6 stopped asking B.B. if she was experiencing any pain during the treatments he administered or whether she consented to him touching her in certain areas.
28. Dr. Riggin touched B.B.’s breast beneath her shirt on one occasion while commenting on how padded her bra was. On one occasion, Dr. Riggin unhooked B.B.’s bra without asking her permission or advising her that he was going to be
doing that during a treatment session. During B.B.’s final treatment, Dr. Riggin touched the sides of her breasts and ran his hands over her breasts and nipples.29. Dr. Riggin made comments to B.B. about her dating activities and his own sexual activities that made her feel uncomfortable. Dr. Riggin also commented on B.B.’s attire and her former employment at Victoria’s Secret. Dr. Riggin, at one point, touched B.B.’s buttocks in the office, apologized and said he forgot where he was and that he always does that to his wife.
30. B.B. referred people to Dr. Riggin’s office during her employment based upon his promise that she would receive a bonus if she referred a certain number of people to his practice.
31. B.B. did not report her concerns about Dr. Riggin because she was scared that it was her fault it had happened. B.B. quit because she felt the situation had crossed the line and she was not comfortable working in Dr. Riggin’s office due to his inappropriate conduct.
32. In December 2011, B.B. spoke to P.H., who had been a patient of Dr. Riggin’s for approximately five years, about her experiences with Dr. Riggin. P.H. contacted K.F., who she suspected had experienced similar issues while working for Dr. Riggin. P.H. had noticed K.F.’s interactions with Dr. Riggin appeared to be more strained at the end of her employment. P.H. had also noticed there was a high turnover with Dr. Riggin’s chiropractic assistants. P.H. put K.F. and B.B. in contact with one another after learning B.B. had left her job after a short period of time.
33. In January 2012, K.F. filed a complaint against Dr. Riggin with the Board after learning of B.B.’s experiences with Dr. Riggin.
34. Dr. Gilles LaMarche has been a chiropractor for 25 years and has been a teacher at Parker Chiropractic Seminars since the late 1980’s. Dr. LaMarche’s background, training, and education in chiropractic medicine established his expertise in the area. Dr. LaMarche has also edited two editions of the Parker System for Professional Services. Dr. LaMarche testified hugging is a part of the Parker Approach and “lather love lavishly” is a Parker Principle that is important to a patient’s healing process. Dr. LaMarche conceded the concept of unconditional love,
Page 7
as contemplated under the Parker Principles, does not constitute a basis for a chiropractor to touch a patient’s breasts or vagina without a legitimate chiropractic purpose. Dr. LaMarche conceded that such conduct is inappropriate and outside of the generally accepted standards of practice.
35. Dr. Vincent J. Maddio, D.C., a Montana licensed chiropractor, testified in this matter that it is inappropriate, outside of the generally accepted standards of practice and without chiropractic purpose, for a chiropractor to touch a patient’s breasts and touch a patient’s vagina. Dr. Maddio testified that intravaginal adjustments are not permitted in the State of Montana. Dr. Maddio has maintained a chiropractic practice in Helena, Montana, for approximately 23 years and is familiar with the terms of professional conduct for chiropractors in the State of Montana. Dr. Maddio’s background, training, and education in chiropractic medicine established his expertise in the area.
36. Compliance Specialist Heidi Kaufman testified the Board employs a progressive system of discipline. The Board considers the nature of the complaint and the existence of previous discipline to determine the nature and type of sanction to impose upon the licensee found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct.
IV. DISCUSSION1
Dr. Riggin filed a motion in limine prior to hearing requesting that evidence related to the revocation of his Idaho chiropractic license and the testimony of B.B. be excluded on the grounds that the evidence was not relevant or probative of the matter before the Hearing Officer and that the evidence was unduly prejudicial. The Hearing Officer denied Dr. Riggin’s motion in limine on the basis that it appeared the evidence related to the Idaho revocation was relevant as to what type of sanctions, if any, should be imposed. The Hearing Officer also denied the motion in limine related to B.B.’s testimony on the basis that it was too early in the proceedings to determine the relevancy or scope of B.B.’s testimony.
A. Evidence regarding the Idaho revocation is admissible.
Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more or less probable. Mont. R. Evid. 401. Evidence of other crimes,wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,1Statements of fact in these conclusions of law are hereby incorporated by reference to supplement the findings of fact. Coffman v. Niece (1940), 110 Mont. 541, 105 P.2d 661.
Page 8
or absence of mistake or accident. Mont. R. Evid. 404(b). Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Mont. R. Evid. 403.
The Montana Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of “other acts” evidence in State v. Dist. Ct. 18th Jud. Dist., 358 Mont. 325, 246 P.3d 415. The court found that Mont. R. Evid. 404(b) does not provide a general bar to evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts; rather it prohibits a theory of admissibility while clarifying when evidence is admissible. Id. at 345. The court noted, “. . . the trial court should carefully analyze whether the evidence in question is relevant for a purpose that does not involve drawing an impermissible inference of action in conformity with character.” Id. at 349. Remoteness in time remains an important relevancy consideration whether other alleged acts are admissible. Id.
Dr. Riggin argues the admission of “other acts” evidence, specifically evidence related to the Idaho revocation, would cause the Hearing Officer to conclude “bad act equals bad person equals guilty person.” Id at 345. The department argues the evidence was not offered for the purpose of proving a character trait. The department contends the evidence was offered to demonstrate “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
The Idaho State Board of Chiropractic Physicians revoked Dr. Riggin’s license in 1997, which was approximately 12 years prior to K.F. beginning work for Big Sky Chiropractic. The remoteness in time of the Idaho revocation to K.F.’s allegations, which were made to the Board in January 2012 - 15 months after her separation from Big Sky Chiropractic - is significant. The Hearing Officer is unable to find that the facts underlying the Idaho revocation is probative as to whether Dr. Riggin engaged in unprofessional conduct in his treatment of K.F. The department argued that the evidence related to the allegations that led to the Idaho revocation could potentially prove opportunity, plan, intent, and preparation on the part of Dr. Riggin. However, the passage of more than 13 years between the two events renders the evidence less than probative of the issue of whether Dr. Riggin engaged in unprofessional conduct holding a chiropractor’s license issued by the State of Montana more than 13 years later. As such, the evidence related to the Idaho revocation has been accorded less evidentiary weight than the sworn testimony of the witnesses who appeared at hearing in the instant case in determining whether Dr. Riggin engaged in unprofessional conduct in regards to his treatment of K.F.
Page 9
However, the evidence, while not relevant to the issue of whether Dr. Riggin engaged in unprofessional conduct in the instant case, is relevant as to what sanctions, if any, should be applied. The Hearing Officer is required under Mont.
Code Ann. §§ 37-1-308 and 37-1-312 and the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) to determine in a contested case hearing if unprofessional conduct occurred, and, if so, what sanction should be imposed under Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-312(1). Bifurcation of the adjudicatory and sanction proceedings before the Hearing Officer is not required under those provisions of law. Given the Board is free to impose progressive discipline upon the licensee, the evidence related to the previous revocation of Dr. Riggin’s license is relevant and is, therefore, admissible.B. B.B.’s testimony is admissible.
Dr. Riggin offered similar arguments regarding the admissibility of B.B.’s testimony. Both B.B. and K.F. appeared at hearing and offered sworn testimony regarding the events leading to their respective separations from Big Sky Chiropractic. B.B.’s testimony regarding “other acts” is relevant, as it pertains to Dr. Riggin’s conduct in the workplace. Further, B.B.’s testimony is probative as to the allegations made by K.F., because it shows, as the department contends, opportunity, plan, intent, and preparation on the part of Dr. Riggin. B.B.’s testimony corroborated K.F.’s testimony as to Dr. Riggin’s approach to establishing a therapeutic relationship with a young female employee prior to engaging in sexually charged behavior that caused the employee/patient to feel uncomfortable, violated, and embarrassed. Further, the testimony of K.F. and B.B. were similar enough as to show Dr. Riggin engaged in a course of conduct intended to afford him the opportunity to engage in inappropriate and offensive conduct toward young female employees/patients. Both B.B. and K.F. testified they understood they were required to submit to treatment by Dr. Riggin. Further, both women were subjected to the same or similar conduct by Dr. Riggin in a treatment setting.
Neither B.B. nor K.F. appeared to have a personal relationship that would lend itself to a finding that the two women colluded and fabricated a story intended to harm Dr. Riggin’s professional standing. Given B.B. appears not to have filed a complaint against Dr. Riggin or had any personal contact with him after her separation from employment, it would appear she has little to nothing to gain in testifying at the administrative hearing. B.B.’s testimony is deemed credible and relevant as to whether Dr. Riggin engaged in the same or similar conduct with K.F.
C. K.F.’s testimony is deemed credible.
Dr. Riggin argued K.F.’s allegations against him were motivated by anger at being placed on an unpaid suspension as a result of her violating his cell phone
Page 10
policy. Dr. Riggin argued K.F.’s allegations were also motivated by her failing to get into a physical therapy training program due to her not having received a letter of recommendation from Dr. Riggin.
K.F. ultimately completed her training and obtained her license as a Physical Therapist in the State of Montana. K.F.’s failure to obtain employment in a medical office is not sufficient to show she had a long held desire to harm Dr. Riggin. In fact, there is no evidence in the record to suggest K.F. stood to benefit from the Board taking action on Dr. Riggin’s license. There is also no evidence showing Dr. Riggin and K.F. had any type of illicit relationship that would have prompted her to act as a “scorned woman” so many months later.
It appears K.F. is a young woman who was sexually assaulted by Dr. Riggin in the guise of his providing therapeutic treatment. While K.F. was obviously an employee of Dr. Riggin at the time the conduct occurred, she was also his patient to whom he owed a duty to act in a manner in accordance with the rules of professional conduct governing his profession. K.F. testified that she came forward after becoming concerned after learning another young woman had been subjected to similar treatment at the hands of Dr. Riggin. K.F.’s testimony, which was sincere and forthright, is deemed credible particularly in the context of B.B.’s testimony, that included sufficiently similar allegations as to corroborate K.F.’s testimony and bolster its credibility. Given the direct and detailed testimony of K.F. and the corroborating testimony of B.B. and K.F.’s family and friends, her testimony that Dr. Riggin made sexual comments to her and sexually assaulted her while receiving chiropractic treatment from Dr. Riggin is deemed more credible than the denials of Dr. Riggin.
Dr. Riggin’s testimony was often self serving and contradictory. For instance, Dr. Riggin testified he typically dated and retained a copy of every document he received during the course of business, such as greeting cards and thank you notes he received from his staff. Dr. Riggin testified that he dutifully completed patients’ treatment records while providing treatment or shortly thereafter. Yet, Dr. Riggin offered no credible explanation as to how he lost K.F.’s treatment card; nor could he provide a plausible explanation as to why the treatment records he could locate for K.F. included illegible or missing information.
Dr. Riggin’s denial that he required all employees to submit to chiropractic treatment is also not credible given that he used portions of a handbook that explicitly stated all employees were required to submit to chiropractic treatment. It makes little sense, given his apparent pride in his attention to detail, that such an item would evade his notice. Further, given Dr. LaMarche’s testimony that the Parker Principles encourage chiropractic staff members to submit to chiropractic treatment in an effort to educate patients and promote regular chiropractic care, it is
Page 11
not credible that a man, who was as devoted to the Parker Principles as Dr. Riggin appears to be, did not require employees to submit to chiropractic treatment from
him as a part of their continued employment with Big Sky Chiropractic.D. Revocation of Dr. Riggin’s license is an appropriate sanction.Compliance Specialist Heidi Kaufman testified the Board employs a progressive system of discipline. The Board considers the nature of the complaint and the existence of previous discipline to determine the nature and type of sanction to impose upon the licensee found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct.
In determining an appropriate administrative sanction under Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-312(1), an administrative board must “first consider the sanctions . . .necessary to protect or compensate the public” and only then may “consider and
include . . . requirements designed to rehabilitate the license or license applicant.” Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-312(2).It is undisputed Dr. Riggin previously had his chiropractic license revoked for engaging in the same or similar conduct that gave rise to K.F.’s complaint almost 13 years later. It is also undisputed Dr. Riggin received a license from the State of Montana, after his initial attempt to gain licensure was denied by the Board, contingent upon his completing one year of probation and having a witness present when he examined or administered treatment to female patients.
Given the seriousness of K.F.’s allegations and the inappropriate actions on Dr. Riggin’s license, it appears that rehabilitation is no longer an appropriate goal in the treatment of Dr. Riggin’s license. It is particularly troubling to the Hearing Officer that Dr. Riggin’s conduct occurred not only in the course of K.F.’s employment but in his treatment of her as a patient. The Board’s previous decision to allow Dr. Riggin to receive a probationary license and to require supervision when treating or examining female patients was insufficient to correct Dr. Riggin’s behavior. It appears to the Hearing Officer that any sanction less than revocation would not be effective in protecting the health and safety of the public. Therefore, it is the Hearing Officer’s recommendation that Dr. Riggin’s chiropractic license be revoked immediately.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Board has jurisdiction in this matter. The Board is empowered to bring disciplinary action against a licensed chiropractor for unprofessional conduct.
Mont. Code Ann. 37-1-307; 37-1-312.Page 12
2. The department bears the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the licensee committed an act of unprofessional conduct. Mont. Code Ann. § 37-3-311; Ulrich v. State ex rel. Board of Funeral Service, 1998 MT 196, 289 Mont. 407, 961 P.2d 126. The department must also show that any sanction which it seeks is appropriate under the circumstances of the case.3. Proof of a particular mental state is never an element of proof of unprofessional conduct.
A licensee may be found to have violated a provision of § 37-1-315 or a rule of professional conduct enacted by a governing board without proof that the licensee acted purposefully, knowingly, or negligently. Mont. Code Ann § 37-1-320.4. Unprofessional conduct is defined as . . . “engaging in or soliciting sexual relations with a patient, sexual misconduct either verbal or physical, sexual contact, sexual exploitation, or a sex offense, as defined in Mont. Code Ann. § 45-2-101, when such act or solicitation is related to the practice of chiropractic.” Admin. R. Mont. 24.126.2301(1)(b).
5. Unprofessional conduct also includes failing to keep adequate patient records that are legible and contain at a minimum:
(i) date of service;
(ii) pertinent history;
(iii) relevant symptomology;
(iv) physical findings;
(v) results of diagnostic tests;
(vi) clinical assessment;
(vii) treatment procedures; and
(viii) patient progress.
Admin. R. Mont. 24.126.2301(r).6. Dr. Riggin engaged in unprofessional conduct by making comments of a sexual nature to K.F. and touching K.F.’s buttocks, breasts, and vagina under the guise of providing chiropractic care. Dr. Riggin also engaged in unprofessional
conduct by failing to keep adequate patient records that are legible and meet the minimum requirements of Admin. R. Mont. 24.126.2301(r).7. Dr. Riggin’s conduct is a breach of the professional standards required of chiropractors practicing in the State of Montana and warrants discipline under the13 rules and laws of the State of Montana, including Mont. Code Ann. §§ 37-1-307, 37-1-309, 37-1-312, and 37-1-316.
8. The Board has a range of disciplinary options available upon proof of a violation. A sanction may be imposed only after first considering sanctions that are necessary to protect and compensate the public. Only after such a determination may the Board consider and include in the order any requirements designed to rehabilitate the licensee. Mont. Code. Ann. § 37-1-312.
9. The severe sanction of revocation is appropriate in this case based upon previous efforts at rehabilitation proving unsuccessful and the seriousness of the
conduct alleged by K.F.VI. RECOMMENDED ORDER
1. The license of Reese R. Riggin, D.C. should be revoked immediately in an effort to protect the public. Mont. Code. Ann. § 37-1-312.
2. Reese R. Riggin, D.C. shall surrender his license within 24 hours of receiving this notification. Mont. Code. Ann. § 37-1-312(4).
3. Reese R. Riggin, D.C. must reapply for licensure, as authorized under Mont. Code. Ann. § 37-1-314, in the event he chooses to petition the Board for reinstatement of his revoked license.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2014.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
HEARINGS BUREAUBy: /s/ CAROLINE A. HOLIEN
CAROLINE A. HOLIEN
Hearing OfficerNOTICE
Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-621 provides that the proposed order in this matter, being adverse to the licensee, may not be made final by the regulatory board until this
proposed order is served upon each of the parties and the party adversely affected by the proposed order is given an opportunity to file exceptions and present briefs and oral argument to the regulatory board.Page 14
-
20. Reese Riggins
DLI-Logo
Home
Help
License Search
Permit Search
Underground Utility Incident Report SearchState of Montana
Business Standards Division
Professional and Occupational Licensing Bureau
Board of ChiropractorsClick here for a disclaimer
License Information
Licensing Board/Program:
Board of Chiropractors
License Type:
Chiropractor License
License Number:
CHI-CHI-LIC-1181
License Status:
Revoked
License Expiration Date:
09/01/2014
License Issued Date:
02/11/2008License Holder
Business Name:Name:
Reese Russell Riggin
City, State Zip:
GREAT FALLS, MT 59404Public Documents
Our records show no public documentation for this licensee.
Discipline
Our records show that a disclose to public disciplinary notice has been issued against this licensee. Please view the following document(s) for more details.
R - 2012-CHI-LIC-12 Riggin, Reese.pdf
27220869_1.pdf
27220869_1.pdf -
21. Before The Board of Chiropractors Department of Labor Industry
-
22. BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY STATE OF MONTANA
1 AnjeanetteChristensen LegalCounsel
2 DEPARTMENTOFLABORANDINDUSTRY 30ISouthParkAve.
3 P.O.Box200513 Helena,MT 59620-0513
4 5 6 7 8 9
Phone(406)84I-23I8
------
BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY STATE OF MONTANA
INTHEMAHER OFTHEAPPLICATION ) DocketNo.CC-08-0309-CHI 10 FORLICENSUREASCHIROPRACTOR ) ComplaintNo.2008-00lO-CHl
(EXAM)FOR: 11
)
)
) NOTICE OF PROPOSED
) BOARD ACTION AND
12 13 14
15
ReeseR.Riggin
TO: ReeseR.Riggin
1818 14’1,Avenue South
GreatFalls,MT 59405
)
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
16
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
17
The Board of Chiropractors (Board) received information containing allegations that you
18
mayhaveviolatedprovisionsofTitle37,ChaptersIand 12oftheMontanaCodeAnnotatedand
19
rulespromulgatedthereunderinTitle27,Chapter 12,oftheAdministrativeRulesofMontana.
20 21 22
23
24
2", "Hasalicensingagencyevertakenadverseordisciplinaryactionagainstyourlicense?"
3. On September9,1997theIdahoStateBoardofChiropracticPhysiciansrevoked
.J Mr.
26
Riggin’slicensetopracticechiropracticmedicine inthestateofldaho. On Fcbmary20,2001
27
Mr.RigginwasdeniedforinitiallicensureintheStateofWashington. OnOctober12,2001,the
28
FACT ASSERTIONS
I. OnoraboutDecember14,2006,theBoardreceivedReeseRiggin’sApplicationfor
LicensureasChiropractor(Exam).
2. Mr.Rigginanswered,"Yes"tothefollowingquestionontheapplication:
NoticeofProposedBoardActionandOpportunityforHearing
Riggin,DocketNo.CC.08.0309.CHI ORIGINAL PageI
1 MontanaBoardofChiropractorsdeniedMr.Riggin’sApplicationtositfortheChiropractic
2 Examination.OnSeptember27,2006theIdahoStateBoardofChiropracticPhysiciansdenied 3 Mr.Riggin’sapplicationtoreinstatehischiropractorlicensebaseduponinsufficientevidenceto 4 establishrehabilitation.
5 4. Mr.Rigginanswered,"Yes"tothefollowingquestionontheapplication:
6 "Hasacomplainteverbeenmadeagainstyouallegingunethicalbehavior,standardofcareissues 7 orunprofessionalconduct?"
8 5. On August6,1997,theIdahoStateBoardofChiropracticPhysiciansfiledits
9 complaintforrevocationandothersanctionsconcerningMr.Riggin’sallegedactionswiththe
10 threecomplainants.
11 6. Mr.Rigginanswered,"Yes"tothefollowingquestionontheapplication:
12 "Doyouhavecriminalchargespendingorhaveeverpleadguilty,forfeitedbond,orbeen
13 convictedofacrime(includingpleaofnocontestordefen-edprosecution)whetherornotan
14 appealispending?"
15 7. A JudgmentofConvictionandOrderofProbationenteredon April ],]999inthe
16 DistrictCourtoftheSeventhJudicialDistrictoftheStateOfIdahostatesthattheDefendant,
17 ReeseRiggin,pleadedguiltytoanamendedchargeofSexualExploitationbyaMedica]Care
18 ProviderandtheDistrictJudgeBrentJ.MossorderedthattheDefendantisguiltyofthecrimeas 19 chargedintheamendedinfonuationandorderedthattheDefendantbeplacedonProbationtothe 20 Courtforaperiodof2years,90daysjailwith80dayssuspended,$750.00fineandaletterof
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
apologytoallvictims.
8. Mr.Riggincompletedthetenusofhisprobationin2001andthecriminalcharges
describedinparagraph7againsttheDefendant,ReeseRiggin,weredismissedonAugust7, 2006.
9. Asaresultoftheaboveinfornlation,theMontanaBoardofChiropractors,in reviewingMr.Riggin’sApplicationforLicensure,referredMr.Rigginforpsychologiealand psychosexualevaluation.
Notice ofProposed Board Action and Opportunity forHcaring
Riggin,DocketNo.CC-08-0J09-CHI Page2
1 10. MichaelJ.Scolatti,Ph.D,P.C.conductedsuchpsychologicalandphysosexual 2 evaluationofMr.Rigginandherecommendedthefollowing:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A. Mr.Rigginshouldcompleteamcdicalethicsorsexualboundariescourse. B.Mr.Rigginshouldhavepeersupervisionforatleastayear.
C. Mr.Rigginshouldonlyseefemalepatientsinthepresenceofanassistantor
aide.
11. SuchrecommendationsaresimilartothesuggestionsprovidedbyMr.Riggin’s
previouscounselor,JohnW.Colson,M.A.,A.B.S.in2002.
12. The Board reviewed the Application and any other information and/or documents
10 availableanddeterminedthereisreasonablecausetobelieveyouhaveviolatedoneormoreof 11 thestatutesorruleseitedbelowandthatdisciplinaryproceedingsarejustified.Asaresult,the 12 BoarddirectedthatthisNoticebeserveduponyoupursuanttoMont.CodeAnn.937-1-309.
13 14 15 ]6 ]7 18 19 20 2] 22 23
24 25 26 27 28
CONCLUSIONSOFLAW 1.ItisunprofessionalconductinviolationofMont.CodeAnn.937-1-316(1)fora
licenseorlicenseapplicantgovernedbythischaptertohaveaconviction,includingconviction followingapleaofnolocontendere,ofacrimcrelatingtoorcommittedduringthecourseofthe person’spracticeorinvolvingviolence,useorsaleofdrugs,fraud,deceit,ortheft,whetheror notanappealispending;
2. Alternativelyandadditionally,itisunprofessionalconductinviolationofMont.Code Ann.937-1-316(7)foralicenseorlicenseapplicantgovernedbythischaptertohaveadenial, suspension,revocation,probation,fine,orotherlicenserestrictionordisciplineagainstalicensee byastate,province,territory,orIndiantribalgovernmentorthefederalgovernmentiftheaction isnotonappeal,underjudicialreview,orhasbeensatisfied;
3. Alternativelyandadditionally,itisunprofessionalconductinviolationofMont.Code Ann.937-1-316(18)foralicenseorlicenseapplicantgovernedbythischaptertoengagein conductthatdoesnotmeetthegenerallyacceptedstandardsofpractice.Acertifiedcopyofa malpracticejudgmentagainstthelicenseeorlicenseapplicantorofatortjudgmentinanaction
NoticeofProposedBoardActionandOpportunityforHcaring
Riggin,DocketNo.C(>08~()309-CHI Page3
involvinganactoromissionoccurringduringthescopeandcourseofthepracticeisconclusive 2 evidenceofbutisnotneededtoproveconductthatdoesnotmeetthegenerallyaccepted
standards; -’
4 4. Altemativelyandadditionally,itisunprofessionalconductinviolationofMont.
5 Admin.R.24.126.230I(l)(b)toengageinorsolicitsexualrelationswithapaticnt,sexual
6 misconducteitherverbalorphysical,sexualcontact,sexualexploitationorasexoffense,as
7 definedin45-2-10I,MCA,whensuchactorsolicitationisrelatedtothepracticeofchiropractic; 8 5. Altemativelyandadditionally,itisunprofessionalconductinviolationofMont.
9 Admin.R.24.126.230l(l)(c)toviolateanystateorfederalstatuteoradministrativerule 10 regulatingthepracticeofchiropracticincludinganystatuteormlcdefiningorestablishing 11 standardsofpatientcareorprofessionalconductofpractice;
12 6. Altemativelyandadditionally,itisunprofessionalconductinviolationofMont. 13 Admin.R.24.126.2301(1)(m)toviolateanystate,federal,provincialortribalstatuteor
14 administrativemlesgovemingoraffectingthcprofcssionalconductofanyliccnsee.
15 7. TheactionstakenbyyouasreferencedintheaboveFactAssertionsconstitute 16 unprofessionalconductandtheBoardmayissueanOrderprovidingforoneormoreofthe 17 followingdisciplinaryactionsundertheprovisionsofMont.CodeAnn.937-1-312:
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
a. revocationofthelicense;
b. suspensionofthelicenseforafixedorindefiniteteml;
c. restrictionorlimitationofthepractice;
d. satisfactory completion ofa spccific program ofremcdial cducation or trcatment;
e. monitoringofthepracticebyasupervisorapprovedbytheboard;
f. censureorreprimand,eitherpublicorprivate;
1-compliancewithconditionsofprobationforadesignatedperiodoftime; g.
h. paymentofafinenottoexceed$1,000foreachviolation; denialofalicenseapplication;
refundofcostsandfeesbilledtoandcollectedfromaconsumer.
8. PursuanttoMont.CodeAnn.937-1-137(I)unlessotherwiseprovidedbylaw,
J.
groundsfordisciplinaryactionbyaboardallocatedtothedepartmentoflaborandindustry 25
againstaholderofanoccupationalorprofessionallieensemaybe,underappropriate 26
circumstances,groundsforeitherissuanceofaprobationarylicenseforaperiodnottoexceed 1 27
ycarordenialofalicensetoanaplicant. 28
NoticeofProposedBoardActionandOpportunityforllearing
Riggin,Docket No. CC.08.0309.CHI Page 4’)
I!
BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY STATE OF MONTANA
1
2
3
4 INTHEMATTEROFTHEAPPLlCATION ) DocketNo.CC-08-0309-CHI
FOR LICENSUREAS CHIROPRACTOR
ComplaintNo.2008-001O-CHI
.s (EXAM)FOR:
) ) ) )
6 ReeseR.Riggin
The Business Standards Division ofthe Montana Department ofLabor and Industry
8
(Department),byandthroughitslegalcounsel,andReeseRiggin,(LicenseApplicant),hereby
9
stipulateandagreeasfollows:
10 11 12
STIPULATION
1. TheMontanaBoardofChiropractors(Board)hasastatutoryobligationtoenforcethe
provisionsofTitle37,ChaptersIand 12,MontanaCodeAnnotatedandmlesadoptedpursuant 13
tosuchlaws,underTitle24,Chapter126,oftheAdministrativeRulesofMontana. 14
2. ApplicantadmitsthejurisdictionoftheBoardoverthesubjectmatteroftheabovc-
1’, .J
entitledproceedings. Applicantdesirestoavoidunnecessaryexpenditureoftimeandother 16
valuableresourcesinresolvingtheissuesinthisaction. Therefore,Applicantspecificallywaives 17
acontestedcasehearingandalrightstoappealundertheMontanaAdministrativeProcedure 18
ActandelectstoresolvethesemattersonthetermsandconditionssetfOlihherein. 19
3. ApplicantacknowledgesthateachtermofthisStipulation,FinalOrderandtheNotice
20
ofProposedBoardActionandOpportunityforHearingissuedinthismatterhasbeenreadand
21
understood. ApplicantacknowledgesthisStipulationisenteredintovoluutariiy,and,vithout
22
2’, .,
threathasbeenmade bytheDepartmentorbyanymember,officer,agentorrepresentativeofthe 24
reservation. Applicantaeknow1edgesthatnopromise,otherthanthosecontainedhereinandno
DepartmenttoinduceApplicanttoenterintothisStipu1ation. 25
4. TheBoardcontendsassetfOlihintheNotice. LicenseApplicantadmitsthe
26
contentions.
27 28
Stipulation and Final Order Riggin,Reese,DocketNo. CC~08-0309-CHI
Page 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5. TheDepartmentandApplicantagreethatthisStipulationshallbeafinalcompromise andsettlementofgroundsforlicensedenialand/ordisciplineasaresultofApplicant’sconduct allegedintheinfonnationreviewedbytheBoard.Thematteroftheapplicationforlicensureas chiropractor(exam)forReeseRigginwasconsideredbythefullBoardonOct()ber12,2007,and thisStipulationreflectsthetermsandconditionssetforthbytheBoard.
6. TheDepartmentandApplicantstipulatethatbeforetheLicenseApplicantwillbe grantedachiropractorlicensehemustcomplywiththefollowing:
A. Mr.RigginmustsubmitproofofsuccessfulcompletionoftheNBCE Ethics& boundariesexamtobetakenathisownexpense;and
B. Mr.RigginmustsubmitaletterdetailingMr.Riggin’spracticesituation,the name ofhispeersupervisor,andthework scheduleforMr.Rigginandhis peersupervisor,andsuchconditionsmustbeapprovedbytheBoard.
7. TheDepartmentandApplicantstipulatethatuponthecompletionofparagraph(6)(A) and(6)(B),theLicenseApplicantwillbegrantedachiropractorlicenseontheconditionthat Licensee’slicenseshallbeplacedonprobationforone(1)yearfromthedateoftheFinalOrder onthefollowingterms:
A. Throughouttheperiodofprobation,Licensee’spracticeshallbeunderthe supervisionofalicensedhealthprofessional,which,forthepurposesofthis Stipulation,includesonlythosepersonslicensedinMontanaasphysicians, psychiatrists,psychologists,chiropractors,advancedpracticeregisterednurses, dentists,physicianassistants,physicaltherapists,professionalcounselors,or socialworkers. Suchsupervisormustconsentinwritingtoserveinthatcapacity
andmustbeapprovedbytheboard. LicenseeshallcausecopiesoftheNoticeof ProposedBoardActionandOpportunityforHearing,thisStipulation,andthe FinalOrdertobeprovidedtothesupervisorandshallprovidesatisfactoryproofof
Stipulat on and Final Order
Riggin,Reese,DocketNo. CC-08-0309-CHI Page2
I
2
", .,
4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ][1 19 20
Licensee may not change supervisors or employment without the prior written consentoftheboardoritsdesignee.
B. Duringtheentiretenl1oftheprobation,Licenseeshallcausehissupervisor(s) tosubmitreportstothehoardregardingLicensee’srehabilitativeprogressandany concernsrelatingtoLicensee’sprofessionalpracticesandanyareasofconcern. KnownnoncompliancebytheLicenseewiththetern1Shereoforwithcriminalor chiropractic laws and rules shall be repolied to the board immediately.
C.
Duringtheentiretem ofprobation,Licenseemusthaveanotherpersoninthe
room(assistant,aide,orotheremployeeofthefacilitywhereheisworking)when examiningorpracticingchiropracticonfemalepatients.
D. Licensee’sprobationshallbetolledduringanyperiodoftimewhenheisnot cmployedasachiropractoronatleastahalf-timebasisandduringanytimethat heisnoteligibletoholdachiropractorlicense.
E. LicenseeshallcomplywithalMontanalawsandrulesgoverning
chiropractorsandthepracticeofchiropractic.
8. If,duringtheperiodofprobation,theBoardfindsreasonablecausetobelievethat
LicenseehasviolatedanyofthetermsandconditionsofthisStipulationoranyofthcstatutesor 21
rulesgoverningtheconductofchiropractorsinthestateofMontana,Applicant’slicenseshan 22
automaticallybesuspendedpendingapromptpost-suspensionhearing. Furtheractionmay be
23
24 takendependingupontheresultsofacontestedcasehearingonanyfactualdisputesasto
25
26
ofMontana.
27 28
whetherLicenseeviolatedanystatutesorrulesgoverningtheconductofchiropractorsinthestate
Stipulation and FinalOrder Riggin,Reese,DocketNo.CC-08-0309-CHI
Page3
Documents
Have docs or info? Add information
Criminal case documents
Floodlit does not have a copy of a related probable cause affidavit. Please check back soon or contact us to request that we look for one.Civil case documents
Floodlit does not have a copy of a related civil complaint. Please check back soon or contact us to request that we look for one.Other documents
Floodlit does not have a copy of any other related documents. Please check back soon or contact us to request that we look for some.
Add information
If someone you know was harmed by the person listed on this page, or if you would like us to add or correct any information, please fill out the form below. We will keep you anonymous. You can also contact us directly.
Other Mormon sex abuse cases
-
- Clark Crookston (1949 – ) was a former Mormon bishop, dentist and college professor in Orem, Utah; accused of nearly 60 years of sex abuse of multiple children; pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated child sexual abuse; sentenced in 2022 to up to 35 years in prison
- View report »
"I assumed I was alone. I felt guilty even to question his worthiness. [...] I buried the hurt and kept it secret for over 30 years. [...] The children who came forward are my heroes. These are the brave souls [who] broke the curse that has been happening for nearly 60 years."-
-
- Steven Murdock (1963 – ) was a Mormon stake high council member and former LDS bishop in Holladay, Salt Lake County, Utah; allegedly sexually harassed multiple women in his ward while he was their bishop (he was bishop from 2013 to 2017); in 2019, was caught taking photos of a young woman in a dressing room in Tennessee; pleaded guilty in November 2019; sentenced in 2019 to one year probation, 48 hours community service
- View report »
-
-
- David Cannata (1965 – ) was a Mormon bishop in Tucson, Arizona in 2005 when he sexually abused a child who was 5 or 6 years old; was a stake high council member sometime in the 2010s; was confronted by the victim and turned himself into the police; convicted in 2019 and sentenced to seven and a half years in prison; was excommunicated from the Mormon church because of the abuse
- View report »
-
