Workers' Compensation Discussion Forums
A question for 1171 - Printable Version

+- Workers' Compensation Discussion Forums (
+-- Forum: Category (
+--- Forum: Injured Worker Forum (
+--- Thread: A question for 1171 (/showthread.php?tid=5833)

A question for 1171 - Bummer Knees - 10-25-2008

I had an IME appointment with my former wc treating doctor.
The information I received from the doctor's office was, "a evaluation of bilateral lower exteremities"

I am 4 months post surgery from a total knee replacement, my 3rd knee surgery of both knees.

Upon arriving at the appointment the nurse took me to x-ray and said we need to take pictures of your back.

My response was, why do you want pictures of my back when this appointment is to evaluate my knees. The nurse's reply was; "not anymore, we have a letter requesting an evaluation of your back"

I cooperated and had the x-rays taken, next was the examination and the doctor took history. The doctor ended with doing a quick exam of my knees. I am having problems with scar tissue and due not have good range of motion so I do not know if this doctor will place me at MMI for the knees, I also walk with a cane.

I called my attorney after the appointment and he was not notified of the change of purpose of the IME.

I have a hearing Thursday of this week to add my back to my wc claim, I have SI joint dysfunction, nerve pain down both legs and in my feet, along with 3 bulging disc.

The IME doctor did say he feels the problems of my back are related to the way I walk.

My question for you is; Is it legal for the insurance company to change the purpose of the IME without notifying my attorney or me?
Also how will the judge view the way the insurance campany setup the IME?

Thank you for reading this post, sorry it is so long.

RE: A question for 1171 - 1171 - 10-26-2008

I am not sure of your state but generally the client of the IME is the carrier and as such the IME can examine and give evidence in any area the client requests.
Since there was an issue on your back I would think the court would want medical evidence to help it make a decision.
thankx for the background information.
trying to give an opinion on a court system and judge that is unknown to me is pure guess work. what would you and your atty have done different if you'd known ahead of time? would the IME have given a different opinion if you knew beforehand?
would it have been less credible?
I think if you knowing would have changed the IME opinion you might have grounds to object.

does that make any sense? I'm not sure if that helps much or if that's what you wanted.

RE: A question for 1171 - oblivyous - 10-26-2008

Hi Bummer Knees. I have Adult tethered spinal cord syndrome, Bulging discs in cervical , Thoracic and lumbar. As well as Degeneratve disease . But what i wanted to tell you is I was recently diagnosed with bone on bone osteoarthritis in my left knee because of the stress it is under. Ortho Dr said i aquired it because of the way i walk which is shifted to the right and i limp on my right foot. Just thought i would share the reverse . Sher

RE: A question for 1171 - Bummer Knees - 10-26-2008

1171, I live and worked in the state of Kansas.

Bummer Knees

RE: A question for 1171 - Bad Boy Bad Boy - 10-26-2008

1171, I do think Bummer said that their fisrt treating doctor, is the one that refered them to a surgeon for the knee replacement. Being that is so, the treating doctor is their doctor. So if that's is so, how can this doctor then be used as an IME Doctor?

The issue of not knowing of the change in the IME Dx could have then delayed the IME with such treating doctor, and also a change of doctors for an IME to be proper.

RE: A question for 1171 - 1171 - 10-26-2008

This is a different issue then what was asked.
my answer concerned the effect of the worker not knowing ahead of time about the purpose of the exam.
Whether a physician is ineligible to function as an IME on a particular case or not is a different issue. I don't think there is a general answer; it's specific to the court rules of that particular jurisdiction and something the atty should answer.
The worker/applicant should file an objection with the comp court if they believe the doctor does not qualify under the state's IME rules.

RE: A question for 1171 - Bad Boy Bad Boy - 10-26-2008

I understand 1171. I asked because it was a current issue adding to the IME and also the change in the evaluation. I agree the medical evaluation wouldn't have changed anything at present time or future time. The issue also is why a treating doctor was used as an IME was my question was all. I would had thought one or two things. That her Attorney allowed it to take place, knowing it could be thrown out. Or the Attorney didn't work fast enough to get it canceled till a Independent doctor could perfprm the IME. Surely the Attorney would be answering some questions I agree.

RE: A question for 1171 - 1171 - 10-27-2008

you're welcome bummer.

RE: A question for 1171 - Bummer Knees - 10-27-2008

Thank you 1171 for being here on the forum.

I do appreciate the time you take to answers the questions injured workers ask.

Bummer Knees