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

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question between doctors
#11
JMO..I would think that the treating Dr.who knows what's been going on, and not the ER Dr. who saw you for a few minutes and wrote a prescription out would be more credible in anyone's eyes. The Er Dr. who treated me for 5 different body parts wrote all the paperwork to say that I had a lumbar sprain. No other parts were mentioned and yet I left the ER in a sholder sling and knee brace. Plus of course prescriptions. I't s usually a quick in and out to treat pain in these cases in the ER, definitely not the same as a Dr. who has been actually tresting someone for months. JMO>


Capricorn
 
Reply
#12
Cycler Wrote:Well, causal relation is simply a more likely than not; ie; 51 % likelihood test. It really wouldn't make a difference if she had or had not called her Drs. office. THere as a an ER visit with a noted chief complaint and evaluation and meds were dispensed, hardly "nothing wrong" or the Dr has some 'splainin to do, regardless of what he told the patient. I am sure, ie. 100 % sure, the ER doctor note does not say normal exam, nothing wrong. That an ER doc does not make a causal relationship statement will not matter , lucky she saw the Dr. at all the way ER's operate anymore.
Cycler,
I am in no way trying to argue or contradict you. I've read many of your posts and find you to be very knowledgeable. Actually, saw posts where you were accused of being an adjuster. You may be but as an ex-adjuster, you may have been one once but I suspect from some of your posts that you have a lot of knowledge in the medical field and that may be your expertise. I may be wrong.

Back to the original post, you are quite right, however in Fl, they've had the "Major contributing cause" thing going on for a few years and most carriers fight tooth and nail. Because the new law has been interpreted as if something occurs as a result of the original injury, is the need for treatment the "major contributing cause" and they have been fighting about how if part of the problem is 30% (say arthritis) and the injury caused that to be aggravated because of overcompensation due to the original injury and it's 20% of the reason, they look at the 30% is "the major contributing cause", instead of looking at, the person had no disability with the arthritis until the injury and because of the injury, it aggravated the pre-existing condition. (kind of negates the statutes which allow for aggravation to pre-existing conditions in my opinion, but, they still try)

And again in FL, only the authorized doctors are able to have any say if it goes to hearing. No matter what the IW's own personal doctor says. And the ER doctors opinion means nothing after they have an authorized treating physician.

I don't agree with it, but was just responding to the original question which was "who would be more credible"

Hard to answer some questions without knowing the laws of the state that has jurisdiction. It's imperative to know that in order to respond correctly. Sort of like trying to answer a question about what can happen in an auto accident case when you don't know whether the state uses comparative negligence or contributory negligence. And is it pure comparative or modified? If they go by modified comparative, do they go by the 50% or 51% rule.

See what I mean?

Without knowing all the laws of the state, (and I'm in no way an expert on Ohio law) it's hard to answer without qualifiers. And even if you know the state, you still can't give absolutes because sometimes case law negates what is statutorily written.

So my answer again was based on, the original question, which was who would be more credible.

You also said "THere as a an ER visit with a noted chief complaint and evaluation and meds were dispensed, hardly "nothing wrong" or the Dr has some 'splainin to do, regardless of what he told the patient. I am sure, ie. 100 % sure, the ER doctor note does not say normal exam, nothing wrong. That an ER doc does not make a causal relationship statement will not matter , lucky she saw the Dr. at all the way ER's operate anymore."

I had many claims where the ER dr dispensed meds, (sometimes narcotics) and put in their reports they found nothing wrong but the patient appeared to be in distress and in pain) You're right about the doctor "having some 'splaining to do).
And a lot of those reports said "drug seeking behavior" meaning they found nothing physically wrong, yet they dispensed narcotics.

For that reason, most of the time the carriers (again qualifying, in FL) and the judges don't give any credibility to an ER report other than the original injury, especially after months and the IW has a treating physician.

Doesn't mean the IW doesn't have the pain, the injuries, etc. just that usually in these cases, the ER doctor is not given the credibility.
 
Reply
#13
Cycler Wrote:The urologist did not perform a uro-dynamic study ? That's how you determine a neurogenic bladder (spine) from not.

Yes, I did have that test and it was noted in my Urologist's notes, that we presented to the Judge.
 
Reply
#14
Kate ;
i am anything but an adjuster, In my state we do not have adjusters for comp, none at all, so I have never met one. What I do have is a very good familiarity with the law and comp workings in this part of the world. While each state adjudicates their comp cases differently there are similarities state to state, and accepted definitions. What some states have more than others is a pattern of fraudulent behavior by insurance companies and their minions.

The attending physician is always the more credible in a scientific sense. That may not be enough to overcome the corruption of a particular states comp system
 
Reply
#15
Hmm.. So did the urodynamic study demonstrate a neurogenic bladder, ie; nerve damage, or was it inconclusive?

[ Comp is an interesting system to me in that Drs are required to make legal determinations, causal relationship, so that lawyers ( and judges) can make a medical decision, ie; ok to treat. Amazing.]

lfoster21 Wrote:
Cycler Wrote:The urologist did not perform a uro-dynamic study ? That's how you determine a neurogenic bladder (spine) from not.

Yes, I did have that test and it was noted in my Urologist's notes, that we presented to the Judge.
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  final doctors report question highdesertguy 9 13,798 07-22-2010, 09:17 PM
Last Post: Bad Boy Bad Boy

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)