Hello There, Guest! Login Register
Index    |     Search    |     Members    |     Help

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unique or just bussiness as usual ?

I have had acl reconstruction and acl revision. The revision was done in 7/04, since then the IC has denied me any treatment in spite of my Doctors 70+ request's over the the ensuing 6+ years. The IC has paid me 400 weeks of ttd since my injury in 2002.
TTD has been exhausted, because NJ has a max of 400 weeks. I"am receiving SSD. I also had been complaining of low back pain since 2002,
this was never addressed by the IC, although my Doctor has been asking for epidural injections since my initial injury. After agreeing to accept my ortho Doctor, they have tried to have him deauthorized numerous times. OK now it is 11/10 and the Judge has written his decision. (Judges words) I find disturbing the Respondent's treatment of
this Petitioner over the year's since the injury in 2002. The designation of the authorized treating physician was initially accepted by the Respondent, immediately following the injury. The Respondent unilaterally deceided to cease authorization of treatment, necessitating
the filing of a motion which the Respondent failed to answer or contest.
That motion resulted in the March, 2003 order requiring the utilization of
Doctor xxxxx as authorized treating physician and requiring the provision of treatment as recommended by him. In 2005 Doctor xxxxx requested
authorization for orthovisc injection's to address the increasing pain in the petitioner's right knee. The Respondent chose to ignore that recommendation and simply failed to authorize the treatment. Subsequently Doctor xxxxx sought authorization for treatment to the lumbar spine and the left knee which was treated in the same fashion,
simply ignored. The Respondent by ignoring the treatment recommendation's of the authorized treating physician, was in direct
violation of the court order of March, 2003 designating Doctor xxxxx as responsible for the petitioner's care. The motion to deauthorize Doctor xxxxx was not even contemplated until this court pointed out the violation of the court's order and required appropriate filings to address the same. Such unilateral action by the Respondent in direct contravention of a court order and in derogation of the worker's right to treatment of his injuries is simply improper and cannot be countenanced. It is not possible, on the record before the court in this matter, to determine the impact of the Respondent's action's, or lack thereof, on the well being of and health of the petitioner. Certainly he experienced a great deal more pain as a consequence of the dereliction of duty displayed by the Respondent and it certainly may be that the consequential injuries to the back and left knee could have been avoided or at least mitigated by prompt response to the authorization request's. (There is so much more to the Judges decision as it is a total of 18 pages.) The Judge has granted me all treatment requested by Doctor xxxxx and has included all my injuries into the case. Any Thought's? Thank You , Happy Healthy New Year to All !
Had the same sort of problem with the IC in my case...the judge fined the IC mega bucks and the fine went to me..altho the judge in my case did not let the IC go for so long without treatment
........I love cats, I just cant eat a whole one by myself......


Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)