Monday, June 22, 2015

WHY.... I have been asked

DISCLAIMER:  The intention of this post is to educate the reader about Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic.  There is no intention of harassing, alarming or annoying anyone.  Dean K Ziegler has committed fraud and continued to commit fraud after the fact.  As a matter of public concern, I feel the general public has the right to know of Dean K Zieglers history so fraud is not committed against them.  I am also exercising my First Amendment right to Free Speech.

I was approached by a reader (actually this was asked of me on multiple occasions) as to what my drive is in having such an extensive site in honor of Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic  (Allentown, PA).  And here it is......

Ever since I worked as a paramedic, I NEVER appreciated any type of fraud.  I dont trust people that commit fraud.  Once a felon, always a felon.  I did whatever I could to combat it. My partner has a cousin that is committing Social Security Fraud.  I reported even her.  Yes a near family member, I reported for fraud.  When it comes to something I have passion about, anything goes.

In terms of Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic he was charged with and ADMITTED to fraud and has a history of showing he doesn't learn his lessons.  My partner worked for him as a massage therapist.  Being licensed in the state of PA, he could loose his license to practice if he was involved in any fraud.  I didn't trust Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic AT ALL!!!.  To protect my partner from his actions, I chose to stay a close "friend" to Dean.  Little did he know, I was a covert SPY.

I was collecting intel from the moment I met him.  I was protecting my partner from the harm Dean K Ziegler does.  There was the time when Dean K Ziegler was going to jail (for fraud none the less) that he wanted patient records sent to an insurance company to try and reimburse payment.  The thing was, these records were not created on the patients and Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic did not have any completed exams on them except the ones he did on a rare occasion.  The thing with Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic is that he charged for exams with every massage although he did not do them.  YES.... Even after being convicted with and admitting to fraud.

To protect my partner from creating the fraudulent records (which would violate his license requirements)  I offered my services to be the one to create them. When the fraudulent records were mailed, I phoned the insurance company to let them know they were fraudulent.

I was already doing things for this felon of a looser like placing plastic wrap around doors and windows, computer work (dumb to give me passwords for), errands, etc.  All for the purpose of collecting as much as I could on this idiot.  I watched closely to what happened on a day to day basis at that felons practice to be sure my partner didn't get tied up with any of Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractics shenanigans.

To give more hours to a massage therapist that he was paying under the table (of course..... MORE FRAUD), Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic was pushing my partner ever so daintily out the door. What ever bull he could try to use he did.  For some reason, probably fear of finding another job, he wanted to keep his job there. So, I kept my partner informed on how to deal with the situation. But ultimately, I wanted him to quit.

Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic finally took the plunge and fired my partner, when he wouldn't leave on his own, for frivolous reasons.  Look at that.... MORE FRAUD.  He wouldn't prove the reasons for firing but it was apparent why. There is fraud in everything this corrupt jack ass does. I was elated that my partner was no longer involved with him.

He quickly found another job and is doing better than he ever did with Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic.  Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic actually got my partner an interview at the establishment he works at today, providing a glowing recommendation.

Fast forward a few months.  I am given word that Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic was still committing fraud.  One patient stopped going when she learned of his history.  Two others shared their bills with me.  It is very easy for me to learn who his patients are. But he was still up to his same games. FRAUD!!!

I was disgusted.  I had already reported him to every government agency I could.  I wanted another way to control his fraudulent activities.  I took to the internet.  I wrote honest reviews and posted them where ever I could. This was my constitutional first amendment right to do so. Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic did not like this.  He filed frivolous harassment charges against me in the form of a Private Criminal Complaint.  HE LOST BIG TIME.

I was driven by his retaliation to do more.  I started to create web sites (including this one) dedicated to educating people about the history of Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic.  Again, protected by the First Amendment.  To date... I have 7 sites.  I have reviews of mine posted in about 18 places that I can remember.   Where ever I could leave a note about him, I DID IT!! I have suggested that other patients write reviews. I know who they were-- thanks to the access Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic gave me to his computers including passwords to his software programs.  I encouraged them to stay anonymous so he doesn't try to waste their time with frivolous harassment complaints.

Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic seems to think my drive for this campaign as he calls it is because he fired my partner.  That is far from the truth.  I was ecstatic to know he was no longer involved with him.  Towards the end, I wasn't coming around because all Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic wanted to do was commit fraud with the workers comp claim I had open.  I was always worried about protecting my parter but was relieved when he was fired.

So there you have it.... My drive to push my campaign.  It is my hopes that NO patients ever go to him for treatment and he has to close up shop.  But, not everyone accesses the internet and he has a select group of followers.

But there are active complaints on him. Hopefully, he looses his license again for a MUCH longer time.  Forever would be grand.....

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Dean K Ziegler admits to fraud, appeals the decision with the PA Superior Court, and looses. His misdirection and spin doctor ways shows within...

DISCLAIMER:  The intention of this post is to educate the reader about Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic.  There is no intention of harassing, alarming or annoying anyone.  Dean K Ziegler has committed fraud and continued to commit fraud after the fact.  As a matter of public concern, I feel the general public has the right to know of Dean K Zieglers history so fraud is not committed against them.  I am also exercising my First Amendment right to Free Speech.

He has a history of.... LOOSING!!!   Go figure.... No one ever said he was smart.  Just conniving!

Appeal from the PCRA Order January 22, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0000680-2011


Dean Kevin Ziegler appeals from the January 22, 2013 order denying his first PCRA petition. We affirm.
On December 14, 2011, Appellant, who was a chiropractor, pled guilty to insurance fraudgraded as a third degree felony at this criminal at this criminal action number and to simple assault at an unrelated action number.
Appellant does not challenge the guilty plea for simple assault that was ____________________________________________
No. 598 EDA 2013
page1image10368 page1image10528 page1image10688 page1image10848 page1image11008 page1image11168 page1image11328 page1image11488
Appellant pled guilty to insurance fraud pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4117(a)(2). In Commonwealth v. Stern, 701 A.2d 568 (Pa. 1997), our Supreme Court held that a related subsection, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4117(b)(1), which criminalized the payment of referral fees to non-lawyers, to be an unconstitutional encroachment upon the High Court’s exclusive authority to supervise the conduct of attorneys in Pennsylvania. However, that holding did not implicate the remainder of the section insofar as it does not involve the Supreme Court’s authority to govern the practice of law.

instituted after he punched his girlfriend in the face. The Commonwealth outlined the factual basis for the pertinent guilty plea as follows:
The affiant[s are] Detective Peter McAfee and Detective Barry McCooley of the Insurance Fraud Task Force. They report that they received an anonymous tip from an individual indicating that the defendant in this case, Mr. Ziegler, had been submitting bills for services that were not performed.
The caller also reported that at one point the defendant was in jail and the practice continued running without his supervision.
Based on that an investigation was initiated, You[r] Honor, on August 5th of 2008. The Detectives determined that the defendant was arrested for reckless endangerment and as a result of that he spent some time in Lehigh County Prison.
The investigation further determined that while the defendant was incarcerated, particularly in the dates of January 23rd, January 27th, January 29th of 2009, as well as January 31st of 2009, the defendant had submitted bills or had his practice submit bills for doctor examinations that had occurred on those dates.
Because he was incarcerated it was determined that doctor exams could not have been performed, based on his location at that point in time. Detectives further conducted an undercover operation where 13 appointments were made for treatment at Ziegler Chiropractic.
Detectives working in an undercover capacity and audiotaping the interactions that occurred at the Ziegler Chiropractic Clinic determined that doctor's exams were billed for approximately — well, actually ten of the visits made by the undercover officers when, in fact, doctor's exams were not performed and compensation for that activity was submitted to State Farm Insurance, Infinity Insurance, Nationwide, [and] Titan AIG for those services that were in fact not rendered.
Total services billed were slightly over $2,000. 

N.T., 12/14/11, 5-8.Appellant retained Glenn McGogney, Esquire, to negotiate the plea
agreement. In exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea to one count of insurance fraud in this case, the Commonwealth agreed to limit Appellant’s minimum sentence exposure to four month’s imprisonment and to withdraw the remaining charges. Following an oral guilty plea colloquy and confirmation of Appellant’s execution of a written plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea. On January 28, 2012, the trial court imposed four to twelve month’s imprisonment. Additionally, the same day, the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence of one to eleven months imprisonment for the simple assault. Thus, Appellant’s aggregate term of imprisonment was five months to twenty three months imprisonment.
Appellant failed to file a direct appeal. Instead, on October 9, 2012, Appellant timely filed a pro se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed and filed an amended PCRA petition challenging Attorney McGogney’s effectiveness for incorrectly advising him of the collateral consequences of his guilty plea to insurance fraud and in failing to request certain discovery from the Commonwealth prior to negotiating the plea agreement. Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied the amended petition and penned a comprehensive opinion outlining the reasons for its decision to deny relief. This timely appeal followed. Appellant complied with the PCRA court’s order to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal

and the trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion that relied upon its prior expression of rationale.
Appellant raises a single two-part question for our review:
Whether the lower court erred by denying the defendant’s P.C.R.A. petition which was based upon the defendant’s belief that trial counsel was ineffective for incorrectly advising the defendant as to the repercussions that would occur regarding his business license and couns[e]l’s failure to properly obtain all discovery in this case which resulted in defendant’s entry of a guilty plea when the defendant believed he was innocent?
Appellant’s brief at 7.
“Our standard of review in an appeal from the grant or denial of PCRA

relief requires us to determine whether the ruling of the PCRA court is supported by the record and is free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345, 358 (Pa. 2011).
This review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record. IdWe will not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. IdThisCourtmayaffirmaPCRAcourt'sdecisiononany grounds if the record supports it. IdFurther, we grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. Commonwealth v. Carter21 A.3d 680, 682 (Pa.Super. 2011). However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Commonwealth v. Paddy609 Pa. 272, 15 A.3d 431, 442 (2011); Commonwealth v. Reaves592 Pa. 134, 923 A.2d 1119, 1124 (2007). Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review plenary. Commonwealth v. Colavita606 Pa. 1, 993 A.2d 874, 886 (2010).
Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa.Super. 2012).

Herein, Appellant contends that his guilty plea was induced by plea counsel’s ineffectiveness. Our Supreme Court recently reiterated the applicable legal principles relating to the right to constitutionally effective counsel as follows:
Appellant may only obtain relief if [he] pleads and proves by a preponderance of the evidence that [his] conviction resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel that, under the circumstances, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii). The Pennsylvania test for ineffectiveness is, in substance, the same as the two- part performance-and-prejudice standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court, see Strickland v. Washington466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), although this Court has divided the performance element into two sub-parts dealing with arguable merit and reasonable strategy. Thus, to succeed on an ineffectiveness claim, a petitioner must establish that: the underlying legal claim has arguable merit; counsel had no reasonable basis for her action or inaction; and the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. See Commonwealth v. Pierce515 Pa. 153, 15860, 527 A.2d 973, 97576 (1987). To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068; accord Commonwealth v. Cox603 Pa. 223, 243, 983 A.2d 666, 678 (2009). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. See Commonwealth v. Ali608 Pa. 71, 86– 87, 10 A.3d 282, 291 (2010). No relief is due, however, on any claim that has been waived or previously litigated, as those terms have been construed in the decisions of this Court. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(3).
Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607, 613 (Pa. 2012).As it relates to the entry of a guilty plea, allegations of plea counsel’s
ineffectiveness will not form a basis for relief unless the alleged

ineffectiveness caused the defendant to enter the plea involuntarily or unknowingly. See Commonwealth v. Anderson, 995 A.2d 1184, 1192 (Pa.Super. 2010). Voluntariness is gauged in terms of “whether counsel’s advice was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Moser, 921 A.2d 526, 531 (Pa.Super. 2007)). In assessing the sufficiency of a guilty plea colloquy, we review the totality of the circumstances and the entire record, including plea counsel’s testimony during the PCRA hearing. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 107 (Pa.Super. 2005) (en banc).
In order to ensure a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea, the trial court is required to make the following inquiries:
1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he or she is pleading guilty or nolo contendere?
2) Is there a factual basis for the plea?
3) Does the defendant understand that he or she has the right to a trial by jury? 
4) Does the defendant understand that he or she is presumed innocent until found guilty?
5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible ranges of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged?
6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement?
Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517, 522-523 (Pa.Super. 2003); Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 590(A)(2).

Herein, Appellant does not specifically challenge any of the foregoing factors. Instead, the crux of Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim is that Attorney McGogney was ineffective in advising him of the consequences that his guilty plea would have upon his chiropractic practice. Significantly, however, Appellant does not assert that counsel failed to inform him that he would likely lose his license to practice chiropractic medicine following his conviction. Instead, conceding that the pertinent advice was, in fact, proffered, Appellant contends that counsel mislead him to believe that he could continue his professional practice without a license by forming a professional corporation. Appellant maintains that had Attorney McGogney given him correct advice, he would not have pled guilty.
The certified record belies Appellant’s contention that his plea was induced by counsel’s ineffectiveness. First, it is well settled that plea counsel need not advise a defendant client of collateral consequences of a conviction. See Commonwealth v. Abraham, 62 A.3d 343, 350 (Pa. 2012) (“[Commonwealth v. Frometa, 555 A.2d 92, 93 (1989)] general holding remains: a defendant's lack of knowledge of collateral consequences of the entry of a guilty plea does not undermine the validity of the plea, and counsel is therefore not constitutionally ineffective for failure to advise a defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea.”). The High Court further explained, “[t]he distinction between a direct and collateral consequence of a guilty plea has been effectively defined by this Court as
the distinction between a criminal penalty and a civil requirement over which
a sentencing judge has no control.”Id. (citation omitted). Instantly, it is
beyond cavil that the judge presiding over the fraud trial lacked any control
over the State Board of Chiropractic’s decision to prohibit Appellant from
practicing chiropractic medicine much less the authority to address the
propriety of the corporate structure of Appellant’s practice.Hence, losing ____________________________________________
While it is not pertinent to our review in the case at bar, the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Abraham, 62 A.3d 343, 350 (Pa. 2012) adopted the two-step analysis the United States Supreme Court employed in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), to assess whether a statute is punitive. That analysis, which is not relevant herein, first considers whether the legislature intended the provision to be punitive. Thereafter, “[i]f the intent is found to be nonpunitive and therefore civil, the second inquiry is whether, despite this intent, the statute is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the intention to deem it civil. Id. (citations and original brackets and quotations omitted). The latter analysis entails a review of “seven factors as ‘useful guideposts’ for determining whether the statute imposes criminal punishment.” Id. at 351. Those factors are as follows:
(1) whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) whether it has historically been regarded as punishment; (3) whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter; (4) whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishmentretribution and deterrence; (5) whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime; (6) whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and (7) whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.
Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 832 A.2d 962, 973) (Pa. 2003)).
In Pennsylvania, the State Board of Chiropractic regulates the licensure of chiropractors. See Chiropractic Practice Act, 63 P.S. §§ 625.101 - 625.1106. As of the date of the PCRA hearing, Appellant maintained his chiropractic license.

his chiropractic license was not only an expected collateral consequence of his fraud conviction, to the extent that he believed he could circumvent the State Board of Chiropractic’s imminent determination and continue operating a clinic, that misapprehension of the law did not undermine the validity of the plea agreement.
During the evidentiary hearing, Attorney McGogney testified that he represented Appellant in the underlying criminal matters and in several civil matters. N.T., 1/2/13, at 33. He confirmed that he had at least twelve discussions with Appellant at his law office and estimated twenty to fifty telephone conferences. Id. at 34. Counsel testified that Appellant called him two to three times on certain days. Id.
The two discussed at length the probability that Appellant would lose his chiropractic license, and Appellant suggested relocating the practice to the Caribbean or seeking licensure in Texas. Id. at 36-37. In fact, in light of the strength of the Commonwealth’s insurance fraud case and Appellant’s inability to afford an expert to present a positive interpretation of his billing scheme, the reality of Appellant losing his license following his conviction was so obvious, the chosen trial strategy was to delay the case and thereby extend Appellant’s ability to continue to practice as long as possible.Id. at
Appellant proposed the expert testify about the latitude chiropractors have
in medical coding that would explain why it appeared he billed a patient for
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

36-37, 39. Indeed, Appellant successfully obtained several continuances. Id. at 36-37, 39, 40. Attorney McGogney further explained that the Commonwealth had overwhelming evidence of the fraudulent billing, including the testimony of undercover investigators who were examined at Appellant’s office on one occasion but were charged for multiple procedures and examinations that were not performed. Id. at 37. Thus, in anticipation of what counsel and Appellant both believed to be inevitable, Attorney McGogney attempted to fashion a corporate structure that would permit Appellant to continue to operate the chiropractic clinic if and when Appellant lost his license to practice. Id. at 47.
Based upon Attorney McGogney’s explanation that he advised
Appellant of the probable collateral consequence of his plea, the PCRA court
found that Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim was untenable. The court
announced, “Whatever little machinations were going on with you trying to
still continue to practice, when you have an insurance fraud conviction
against you, is not relevant to whether or not the plea was knowing,
intelligent and voluntary. It’s just not. And until I see some case law that
says otherwise, this [argument] is approaching ridiculous.” Id. at 48. We
agree with the PCRA court’s perspective. Herein, Appellant was not only
aware of the collateral consequence that his guilty plea would have on his (Footnote Continued) _______________________
an office visit even if he did not examine the patient personally. N.T., 1/2/13, at 41.
- 10 -

license to practice chiropractic medicine, he reorganized the corporate structure of his chiropractic clinic in a futile attempt to circumvent the specific consequence that he anticipated. The fact that Appellant’s supposed remedy to the expected collateral consequence of his guilty plea was flawed did not render his plea unknowing.Thus, no relief is due.
The second component of Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim
assails Attorney McGogney’s decision to forgo requesting discovery of an
audiotaped conversation between Appellant and his officer manager, Selinas
Rivera that was recorded while Appellant was in prison for a parole violation.
While the audiotape was believed to contain incriminating evidence of the
insurance fraud scheme, Appellant claims the audiotape, in fact, recorded a
benign conversation where he and Ms. Rivera deciphered his handwriting on
office documents. Id. at 26-27. Appellant now asserts that, had he known
the contents of the audiotape, he would not have pled guilty. Thus, he ____________________________________________
Although not cited by Appellant, we observe that this Court recently held in Commonwealth v. Brandt, 74 A.3d 185 (Pa.Super. 2013) that, regardless of whether the consequences are direct or collateral, it is constitutionally ineffective assistance for counsel to misapprehend the consequences of a plea and mislead the client regarding those consequences. That holding is completely inapplicable, however, where, as here, counsel correctly anticipated the collateral consequence of the guilty plea and advised his client accordingly. Undeniably, Attorney McGogney advised Appellant that he would likely lose his chiropractic license as a collateral consequence of the plea and Appellant still expects this consequence to occur. To the extent that counsel provided defective advice in an attempt to circumvent the inevitable consequence of the plea, that defect is too remote to affect Appellant’s constitutionally protected right to effective counsel during the criminal proceedings or invalidate the plea.
- 11 -

posits that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to procure the audiotape from the Commonwealth.
In rejecting this argument, the PCRA found that Attorney McGogney made a strategic decision to forgo the audiotape because it was a minor part of the Commonwealth’s case and requesting it might annoy the prosecution and derail the ongoing plea negotiations. Trial Court Opinion, 1/22/13, at 6- 7. As the record supports the PCRA court’s determination, we will not disturb it.
Trial counsel has broad discretion to employ trial tactics and strategies and counsel’s decision is not tantamount to ineffective assistance unless counsel had no reasonable basis for the action or inaction. See King supra 619. Herein, Attorney McGogney proffered a reasonable basis for declining to pursue the audiotape.
Attorney McGogney explained that he requested several items from the Commonwealth, including witness statements and police reports. N.T., 1/2/13, at 41. However, he declined to pursue the audiotape because it was a minor component of the Commonwealth’s case, and he was more concerned with the witnesses who actually went to the clinic and were billed incorrectly. Id. at 41, 44. Attorney McGogney believed that the testimony presented by those witnesses would be sufficient to convict Appellant, particularly when Appellant was unable to present an expert to dispute the Commonwealth’s expert testimony regarding the billing codes. Id. at 41-42.
- 12 -

Moreover, Attorney McGogney met with the insurance fraud investigators and learned that the Commonwealth was considering amending the criminal complaint to level several additional charges stemming from its investigation of Appellant’s billing practices. Id. at 35-36. Attorney McGogney believed that the plea agreement was the best that Appellant could attain under the circumstances and he did not want to needlessly annoy the prosecution to obtain an inconsequential piece of evidence. Id. at 38-39. As Attorney McGogney provided a competent rationale for his decision to forgo requesting the audiotape, Appellant cannot demonstrate that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action. See Commonwealth v. Timchack, 69 A.3d 765, 773-74 (Pa.Super. 2013) (“plea counsel set forth to engage in favorable plea negotiations, and therefore, he had a reasonable basis for not undertaking additional investigation and discovery”). As Appellant is not able to establish the second prong of the test to determine ineffective assistance, the claim fails. Commonwealth v. Philistin, 53 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. 2012) (failure to prove any prong of three-part test governing claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will defeat claim).
Order affirmed
- 13 -

J-S73028-13 Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 12/17/2013
 page14image2016 page14image2176
- 14 - 

Sunday, June 14, 2015

The Commonwealth of PA Suspends Dean K Ziegler:

DISCLAIMER:  The intention of this post is to educate the reader about Dean K Ziegler of Ziegler Chiropractic.  There is no intention of harassing, alarming or annoying anyone.  Dean K Ziegler has committed fraud and continued to commit fraud after the fact.  As a matter of public concern, I feel the general public has the right to know of Dean K Zieglers history so fraud is not committed against them.  I am also exercising my First Amendment right to Free Speech.

(This was compiled from a PDF  that was imported to word then copy and pasted here.  Formatting is off, but the content is the same.)
If reading from a cellphone, turn device horizontal.



DEAN K.ZIEGLER, DC, Respondent

FILE NO. 11-43-09747

DOCKET NO. 0537-43-12




2601 North Third Street
P.O. Box 2649
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2649                                                                                                                                               KEM


This matter comes before the State Board of Chiropractic (Board) on an Order to Show Cause (OSC) filed on March 19, 2012, as to why the Board should not suspend revoke, or otherwise restrict Respondent's license under the authority of 63 P.S. §§ 625.506(a)(6), 703,
2205(b)(4), 2205(b)(5) or 18 Pa.C.S. § 9124(c)(l).

Respondent replied to the OSC by filing an Answer and With Affirmative Defenses. Within this Answer Respondent admitted several facts alleged in the OSC. A hearing was scheduled for July 26,2012, and was later rescheduled for September 27,2012.
On September 27, 2012, a hearing was held before the Board. Board members Kathleen G. McConnell, D.C,  Jessie Smith, Christopher Decker, Miriam Meny  Woods, Jonathan McCullough, D.C., Joseph Grice, D.C., and Kathy Barley, Deputy Commissioner were present for  the   hearing. 1    David  M.   Green,  prosecuting  attorney,  appeared  on  behalf  of   the Commonwealth. Respondent was represented by counsel, but was not present at the hearing.

All Board members who deliberated on this case reviewed the entire record of the case prior to deliberation.


1.         Respondent held a license to practice as a chiropractor  in the Commonwealth  of Pennsylvania: license no.: DC006399L. (Exhibit A atI; Board records)

2.         Respondent's   license  was  originally  issued  on  May  14,   1997,  and  may  be renewed, reactivated or reinstated thereafter upon the filing of the appropriate documentation and payment of the necessary fees. (Exhibit A at2)

3.         At  all  times  relevant  to the  factual  allegations,  Respondent  held  a license  to practice as chiropractor in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  (Exhibit A at3)

4.         Respondent's  last known address on file with the Board is: 101 South 14th Street, Allentown, PA 18102. (Exhibit A at4)

5.         On December 9, 2010, a criminal complaint was filed in Lehigh County Court of Common  Pleas  at  No.  AI-10-00459,  charging  Respondent  with  Insurance  Fraud,  Theft  by Deception and Conspiracy, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 4117(a)(2), 3922(a)(2) and 9039a), respectively. (Exhibit A at7; see Exhibit C-1)

6.         On March 9, 2011, a Criminal Information was filed in Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas at No. CP-39-CR-680-2011, charging Respondent with two counts of Insurance Fraud, one count of Theft by Deception and one count of Criminal Conspiracy, in violation of 18Pa.C.S. §§ 4117(a)(2), 3922(a)(l) and 903(a), respectively. (Exhibit A at9; see Exhibit C-2)

7.         On December 14, 20 II, Respondent pled guilty to one count of Insurance  Fraud, a third-degree felony, in the criminal matter  referenced here in above.  (Exhibit  A at II; see Exhibit C-3)
8.         On January 26, 2012, Respondent was sentenced by the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas to four to twelve months incarceration, followed by consecutive probation for a period of two years, and was ordered to pay restitution to State Farm Insurance in the sum of$6,098.52. (Exhibit A at13; see Exhibit C-4)

9.         On March  19,  2012,  the  prosecuting  attorney  filed  an  Order  To Show  Cause (OSC)  why the Board, upon consideration  of the Factual Allegations  and the applicable  law, should not suspend, revoke or otherwise restrict Respondent's  license, impose a civil penalty, or impose the cost of investigation. (Board Records; see Exhibit A)

10.       On May 18, 2012, Respondent, filed an answer with affirmative defenses to the Order to Show Cause. (Board Records; see Exhibit B)

11.       On May 29'h, 2012, a hearing was scheduled for July 26, 2012. (Docket 11-43-

09747, 0537-43-12)

12.       On July 24'\ 2012, the hearing was rescheduled for September 27, 2012. (Docket 11-49-09747, 0537-43-12)

13.      On  September  27,  2012,  Respondent  did  not  appear  for  his  hearing  but  was represented by counsel. (N.T. 5,passim)


I.       The Board has jurisdiction in this matter. (Findings of fact nos. 1-3)

2.          Respondent  has been afforded reasonable notice of charges against him and an opportunity to be heard in this proceeding, in accordance with the Administrative Agency Law,
2 Pa. C.S. § 504. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 9-13)

3.         Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Section 506(a)(6) of the Act, 63

P.S. § 625.506(a)(6),  because Respondent has been convicted of a felony in the courts of this Commonwealth. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 5-9)

4.         Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under CHRIA,
18 Pa.C.S. § 9124(c)(1), because Respondent has been convicted of a felony.  (Findings of Fact, Nos. 7-8)


This matter is brought under Section 506(a)(6) of the Act, 63 P.S. § 625.506(a)(6), which provides as follows:
Section 506.  Refusal, suspension or revocation of license.

(a) Reasons enumerated. -- The board may refuse to issue a license or may suspend or revoke a license for any of the following reasons:

(6)       Being convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor in the practice of chiropractic, or receiving probation without verdict, disposition in lieu of trial or an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in the disposition  of felony charges, in the courts of this Commonwealth, a Federal court, or a court of any other state, territory, possession or county. 63 P.S. § 625.506(a)(6).
Additionally, this matter is brought under Section 9124(c)(l) of the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), 18 Pa. C.S. 9124(c (l ), which provides as follows: Section 9124.  Use of records by licensing agencies.

(c) State action authorized.--Boards, commissions or departments of the Commonwealth authorized to license, cet1ify, register or permit the practice of trades, occupations or professions may refuse to grant or renew, or may suspend or
revoke any license, certificate, registration or permit for the following causes:

(I) Where the applicant has been convicted of a felony.

18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9124(c)(l).

The Commonwealth case at hearing was comprised of certified copies of documents from the Court of Common Pleas Lehigh County, evidencing the charges filed against Respondent, his conviction and sentencing. Specifically, Respondent pled guilty to one count of Insurance Fraud, a third-degree felony, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4117(a)(2).

The case law is clear that Respondent's actions resulted in a conviction that may not be challenged in a subsequent licensure proceeding. Burnworth v. State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salespersons, 589 A.2d 294 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (citing Department of Transportation Bureau of Drivers Licensing v. Greene, 535 A.2d 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)). Accordingly, the documents admitted into evidence at the hearing establish a factual basis for the imposition of disciplinary action under Section 506(a)(6) of the Act, 63 P.S. § 625.506(a)(6).

Respondent pled guilty to one count of insurance fraud, and was sentenced to not less than four nor more than twelve months of imprisonment, two years of probation, and to pay restitution to State Farm in the sum of$6, 098.52.

According to court records, Respondent operated a chiropractic office, known as Ziegler Chiropractic Clinic, in which Respondent is the sole chiropractor. During the timeframe of January 21, 2009, through February 5, 2009, Respondent was incarcerated at Lehigh County Prison. However, during this same timeframe Respondent billed insurance companies, including State Farm, charging for doctor-provided services.

In assessing the appropriate sanction to impose, the Board considers the severity of violations, along with any mitigating factors present. During the hearing, Respondent's attorney offered the information that Respondent has paid the restitution to State Farm Insurance in full. This information was later verified by a copy of the case financial information.

Under professional licensing statutes such as the Chiropractic Practice Act, the Board is charged with the responsibility and authority to  oversee the profession and to regulate and license professionals to protect the public health and safety. Barran v. State Board of Medicine, 670 A.2d 765, 767 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996), (appeal denied 679 A.2d 230 (Pa. 1996)). 

Respondent's criminal actions squarely place before the Board the question of whether Respondent can be trusted to resume practice in an ethical manner. Because Respondent pled guilty to insurance fraud, there is substantial evidence that Respondent cannot practice in an ethical manner and, therefore, is subject to discipline.   Respondent's actions weigh heavily against his ability to practice chiropractic. The public can be protected only by the Board issuing an order to suspend Respondent's license for five years, with six months active and the remainder stayed in favor of probation.

Thus, based upon the above findings of fact, conclusion of law and discussion, the following proposed order shall issue:


Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs                                                                  Docket No.  0537-43-12

Dean L. Ziegler, D.C., Respondent

File No. 11-43-09747


AND NOW, this 22nd of September, 2013, having duly convened and considered the entire record of the proceedings, and based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of  Law  and  Discussion,  the  State  Board  of Chiropractic  hereby  SUSPENDS  the  license to practice chiropractic of Respondent,  Dean L. Ziegler, D.C., license numbers DC-006399L and AJ-006399-L,  for FIVE  YEARS,  with SIX MONTHS  ACTIVE,  remainder  to be stayed in favor of PROBATION.   The terms of the Probation shall be as follows.   Any violation of the terms of probation shall be considered a violation of this Order.

Respondent must enroll in an Ethics and Boundaries course. Respondent must complete this course and take and pass the Ethics and Boundaries Essay Examination offered by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
At the end of the six month time period, Respondent submit to the Board proof that he has not practiced while suspended and that he has completed the Ethics and Boundaries course and passed the examination.
Further, Probation will be subject to the following te1ms and conditions:


1.         Respondent shall abide by and obey all laws of the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its political subdivisions  and all rules and regulations and laws pertaining to the practice of the profession in this Commonwealth or any other state or jurisdiction in which Respondent  holds a license  to  practice  the profession.    Summary  traffic violations shall  not constitute a violation of this order.

2.     Respondent shall at all times cooperate with the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs and its agents and employees in the monitoring, supervision and investigation of Respondent's  compliance with the terms and conditions of this order, including requests for, and causing to be submitted  at Respondent's  expense, written reports, records and verifications  of actions that may be required by the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs.

3.          Respondent shall not falsity, misrepresent or make material omission of any information submitted pursuant to this order.

4.         Respondent shall notify the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, in writing, within five (5) days of the filing of any criminal charges against Respondent, the initiation of any legal  action  pertaining   to  Respondent's   practice  of  the  profession,   the  initiation,  action, restriction or limitation relating to Respondent by a professional licensing authority of any state or jurisdiction or the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States Department of Justice, or any other  investigation,  action, restriction  or limitation  relating to Respondent's  privileges  to practice the profession.

5.         Respondent  shall   notify the  Bureau  of   Professional   and  Occupational   Affairs  by telephone within 48 hours and in writing within five (5) days of any change of Respondent's home address, phone number, employment status, employer and/or change in practice.


6.         Notification  of  a violation  of the terms or  conditions  of this order shall result in the IMMEDIATE VACATING of the stay order, TERMINATION of the period of probation, and ACTIVATION  of the suspension of Respondent's license(s) to practice the profession in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as follows:

a.         The  prosecuting attorney for  the  Commonwealth shall  present to  the Board's Probable Cause Screening Committee (Committee) a petition that indicates that Respondent has violated any terms or conditions of this order.
b.        Upon a probable cause determination by the Committee that Respondent has violated any of the terms or conditions of this order, the Committee shall, without holding a formal hearing, issue a preliminary order vacating the stay of the within su pension, terminating this probation and activating the suspension of Respondent's license.
c.        Respondent shall be notified of the Committee's preliminary order within three business days of its issuance by certified mail and first class mail, postage prepaid, sent to the Respondent's last registered address on file with the Board, or by personal service if necessary.
d.         Within 20 days of mailing of the preliminary order, Respondent may submit a written answer to the Commonwealth's Petition and request that a formal hearing be held concerning Respondent's violation of probation, in which Respondent may seek relief from the preliminary order activating the suspension. Respondent shall mail the original answer and request for hearing to the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs' Prothonotary, 2601 North Third Street, P.O. Box 2649, Harrisburg, PA    17105-2649, and a copy to the prosecuting attorney for the Commonwealth, as well as all subsequent filings in the matter.
e.         If Respondent submits a timely answer and request for a formal hearing, the Board or a designated hearing examiner shall convene a formal hearing within 45 days from the date of the Prothonotary's receipt of Respondent's request for a formal hearing.
f.        Respondent's submission of a timely answer and request for a hearing shall not stay the suspension of Respondent's license under the preliminary order. The suspension shall remain in effect unless the Board or the hearing examiner issues  an  order  after  the  formal  hearing staying  the  suspension again  and reactivating the probation.
g.        The facts and averments in this order shall be deemed admitted and uncontested at this hearing.

h.          If  the  Board  or  hearing  examiner  after  the  formal  hearing  makes a determination against Respondent, a final order  will be issued sustaining the suspension of Respondent's license and imposing any additional disciplinary measures deemed appropriate.
i.      If Respondent fails to timely file an answer and request for a hearing, the Board, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, shall issue a final order affirming the suspension of Respondent's license.
j.          If Respondent does not make a timely answer and request for a formal hearing and a final order affirming the suspension is issued, or the Board or the hearing  examiner  makes  a  determination  against  Respondent· sustaining  the suspension of Respondent's license, after serving the stayed suspension period and any additional imposed discipline, Respondent may petition the Board for reinstatement upon verification that Respondent has complied with the Board’s order,  abided by and obeyed  all laws of the United States,  the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania   and   its   political    subdivisions,  and   all   rules   and   regulations pertaining  to the practice  of the profession in this Commonwealth.

k.          Respondent's  failure to fully comply  with any terms 0f this order may also constitute grounds for additional disciplinary action.

7.         Nothing  in this order shall preclude the prosecuting  attorney for the Commonwealth from filing  charges  or the Board  from  imposing disciplinary  or connective measures for violations or facts not contained  in this order.

This order shall be effective  immediately. The Suspension  and Probation  shall be effective October 30 2013, 30 days from the date of this Order.