Saturday, April 29, 2006
Carl Strock ON TBI-- not!
Carl Strock is a tri-weekly columnist for The Daily Gazette newspaper published in the Schenectady New York area. Recently, his The View From Here column [4/26/2006, Local Section, page B1] addressed traumatic brain injury or tbi. This particular column is pure Carl Strock, frustrated whistle-blower and attacker of those who publickly disagree with him without doing their proper homework beforehand.
TBI or not TBI: That is the Question unintentionally demonstrates the plight of folks living with a very real disability that some other folks are reluctant to recognize. Insurance companies have certainly proven to be among the reluctant in practice even if not in theory. Carl Strock accepts the conclusions of two IMEs without question in the case of a fireman disabled by tbi. The hired guns who authored the two IMEs naturally found the patient to be just ducky.
The acronym IME stands for Independent Medical Examination and it is a misnomer. IMEs are not independent, medical, nor are they true unbiased examinations. They ought to be renamed Insurance Company Exams for that is what they truly are. IMEs are biased by definition. Litigation pits injured people against the insurance companies and their paid medical specialists. Consequently, the workers' compensation claimant and the survivor of an automobile accident both need the services of a qualified attorney in order to protect their slim rights in a system determined to forget them. It is a system which is not interested in the well-being of people. Money is the bottom line for all of the professional players: workers' comp insurance companies, no-fault [we-ain't-paying-cuz-it-ain't-our-fault] aut0mobile insurance companies, employers, and the ambulance chasers-- who after all also have a vested interest. Money, not health, becomes the bottom line.
The folks at http://www.medpsychny.com/ sells guidelines for an adequate insurance company examination which will counter and discount the claims of litigants. They fall back on the tired old lie of attribution of tbi symptomology to psychiatric rather than to neurological etiology. They deny that tbi is a rising silent epidemic.
There is a rise in the trend towards full settlement of cases where tbi is diagnosed. MedLaw is in the business of suggesting how to defend against such cases without meeting the plantiffs. The company provides written reports of possible strategies to insurance defense attorneys.
As expected, neither MedLaw nor Carl Strock address the true state of workers' compensation and "no fault" laws in the State of New York. They neglect to mention the myriad loopholes which insurance companies can use to avoid monetary responsibility for their injured workers and drivers.
MedLaw does not appear to present their hired guns with a model of how to conduct an unbiased functional assessment. They are no better than the ambulance chasers whose tactics are also questionable. Meanwhile, a fireman with tbi remains at home and unable to work. And the brain-damaged among us are drained by a system which is the antithesis of help, hope, and caring.
~sapphoq ¶ 12:38 PM
TBI or not TBI: That is the Question unintentionally demonstrates the plight of folks living with a very real disability that some other folks are reluctant to recognize. Insurance companies have certainly proven to be among the reluctant in practice even if not in theory. Carl Strock accepts the conclusions of two IMEs without question in the case of a fireman disabled by tbi. The hired guns who authored the two IMEs naturally found the patient to be just ducky.
The acronym IME stands for Independent Medical Examination and it is a misnomer. IMEs are not independent, medical, nor are they true unbiased examinations. They ought to be renamed Insurance Company Exams for that is what they truly are. IMEs are biased by definition. Litigation pits injured people against the insurance companies and their paid medical specialists. Consequently, the workers' compensation claimant and the survivor of an automobile accident both need the services of a qualified attorney in order to protect their slim rights in a system determined to forget them. It is a system which is not interested in the well-being of people. Money is the bottom line for all of the professional players: workers' comp insurance companies, no-fault [we-ain't-paying-cuz-it-ain't-our-fault] aut0mobile insurance companies, employers, and the ambulance chasers-- who after all also have a vested interest. Money, not health, becomes the bottom line.
The folks at http://www.medpsychny.com/ sells guidelines for an adequate insurance company examination which will counter and discount the claims of litigants. They fall back on the tired old lie of attribution of tbi symptomology to psychiatric rather than to neurological etiology. They deny that tbi is a rising silent epidemic.
There is a rise in the trend towards full settlement of cases where tbi is diagnosed. MedLaw is in the business of suggesting how to defend against such cases without meeting the plantiffs. The company provides written reports of possible strategies to insurance defense attorneys.
As expected, neither MedLaw nor Carl Strock address the true state of workers' compensation and "no fault" laws in the State of New York. They neglect to mention the myriad loopholes which insurance companies can use to avoid monetary responsibility for their injured workers and drivers.
MedLaw does not appear to present their hired guns with a model of how to conduct an unbiased functional assessment. They are no better than the ambulance chasers whose tactics are also questionable. Meanwhile, a fireman with tbi remains at home and unable to work. And the brain-damaged among us are drained by a system which is the antithesis of help, hope, and caring.
~sapphoq ¶ 12:38 PM
