In 1998, Jay M. Holder, D.C., of Florida, applied for vendor status in Oregon. Such status would have allowed his Torque Release Technique seminars and American College of Addictionology programs to offer continuing education hours for the license renewal requirement of chiropractors in Oregon.

The Oregon Board of Chiropractic Examiners (OBCE) had granted vendor status to Dr. Holder and his programs in previous years. This time, however, it decided to deny vendor status based on allegations against Holder's credentials, awards and credibility that were mailed to the OBCE by Dr. Lester Lamm of Western States Chiropractic College. It made the decision without obtaining independent confirmation of the information, and without providing Holder with an opportunity to rebut the charges.

This meant that Holder's programs could no longer provide continuing education in Oregon without soliciting an approved sponsor for his programs.

Holder appealed the OBCE's order to the Oregon courts and the OBCE eventually withdrew its order, negotiated a settlement, and permitted Holder to continue providing CE programs for Oregon D.C.s. Holder's credentials and awards were simultaneously vindicated by the settlement with the OBCE.

In the settlement, the judge provided specific instructions that the Executive Director, David McTeague of the OBCE failed to follow, according to another suit filed by Holder.

On June 11, 2002, following a hearing in May 2002, Judge Albin Norblad of the Third Judicial District issued a decision in which he stated that "Mr. McTeague and his counsel missed the point; the issue is not whether there was harm but the fact that Mr. McTeague knowingly and intentionally violated the Court's order. This intentional and knowing violation of the Court's order puts Mr. McTeague in contempt." The Judge awarded attorney fees to Holder, to be paid by McTeague, and issued other sanctions.

This court decision raised several questions among state doctors: Was this an act solely on the part of the OBCE'S Executive Director or was it at the direction of the professional Board Members of OBCE? If the professional members were not aware of these actions, why not? If the professional members did not direct the Executive Director of OBCE to act as he did, why did a Deputy Attorney General represent the Executive Director (at the profession's expense)?

Also left unanswered is the question of who will be responsible for paying the attorney fees and other sanctions to Holder: McTeague or the profession, through board fees?