What professional disciplinary actions, if any, has Pete Sulack faced related to patient care?

1. What the official disciplinary databases we have say — nothing about Sulack

Search results include state and professional disciplinary portals (Illinois IDFPR consolidated reports, Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners actions page, Minnesota Supreme Court disciplinary docket and a Texas Bar Journal disciplinary listing) but none of those results show an entry naming Pete/Peter Sulack in the snippets provided. The Illinois monthly discipline page explains how it lists disciplined licensees but the snippet does not identify Sulack ^[1]. The Louisiana actions detail page exists but the supplied snippet simply directs users to the verification portal and does not cite Sulack ^[2]. The Minnesota Supreme Court disciplinary case index and the Texas disciplinary summaries are present in the results but do not show a Sulack-specific action in the excerpts provided ^{[3] [5]}. This means available reporting in these search results does not identify any formal disciplinary action against him ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}.

2. Clinic and professional profiles emphasize practice and reputation, not discipline

Multiple professional profile pages and clinic sites for Dr. Pete (Peter) Sulack present his career narrative, patient volume and services. Redeem Health / Redeem Chiropractic and Progressive Medical Center profile pages describe him as founder/lead practitioner, with over 20 years’ experience and hundreds of thousands (even claimed millions) of patient visits; none of those profiles mention disciplinary findings or sanctions ^{[6] [9] [8]}. His personal media site and interviews likewise promote his work and writings but do not disclose any regulatory actions in the snippets provided ^{[7] [10] [11]}. That absence in promotional and professional biographies is notable but not dispositive — organizations often omit negative regulatory history, while regulatory databases would record formal sanctions.

3. What the search results do and do not prove

The available sources establish what is present in the record excerpts and what is missing. They show disciplinary portals exist and list licensees when action occurs, but in the supplied snippets no Sulack entry appears ^{[1] [2]}. The clinic and media materials portray Sulack positively and contain no admissions of discipline ^{[6] [7] [8]}. However, absence of a Sulack listing in these particular search-result snippets is not the same as a comprehensive nationwide clearance. The databases cited cover specific jurisdictions (Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Texas and FINRA financial sanctions) but the search results do not include, for example, the Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners or a comprehensive national disciplinary index; those are not mentioned in the current reporting ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.

4. Alternate explanations and investigative next steps

There are three plausible interpretations of the current record: (a) Sulack has no public disciplinary actions and regulatory records reflect that (consistent with the lack of listings in the supplied snippets and with promotional bios that omit sanctions) ^{[6] [8]}; (b) any action would be recorded in a jurisdiction or database not included among the provided search results (available sources do not mention Tennessee Board records or a national medical disciplinary index); or (c) disciplinary records exist but were not surfaced in these search results or snippets (available sources do not mention such records). To verify fully, consult the licensing board for the state where he practices (Tennessee chiropractic board), check the National Practitioner Data Bank or state licensing searches, and pull full entries from the disciplinary pages referenced rather than snippets ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Transparency, bias and caveats

Clinic and personal sites naturally present a promotional narrative; that creates an incentive to omit unfavorable information ^{[6] [7]}. Conversely, government discipline portals list actions when adjudicated, but our search result set is incomplete across jurisdictions and does not include direct output from Tennessee licensing authorities or a national disciplinary database in the provided sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Therefore, the strongest, source-backed conclusion we can draw from the current reporting is that these supplied documents and profiles do not show any professional disciplinary actions against Pete/Peter Sulack related to patient care ^{[6] [8] [1]}.