Doctors Making Diagnoses By Proxy
AppId is over the quota
It's actually quite possible that your disability case will be determined by something a doctor you've never even met has to say. IMEs generally don't meet or examine the people who they're asked to assess. Instead, they review the files you've sent to the insurance company and, once in a blue moon, speak to your treating physicians. It's no wonder why they do it. It's difficult to get doctors and patients together over great distances, it lessens the possibility of a plaintiff unduly affecting or trying to embellish results (which they can tell), and it depersonalizes the process so they don't have to feel bad about denying benefits to people they like and feel sorry for.
But in this case they go beyond that. They don't even contact the treating physicians, those who have medical knowledge and know the facts of the case the best. Of course they're going to deny benefits if all they're doing is reading a piece of paper. They can come up with hundreds of excuses to discredit written words because words can't argue back like another doctor can. Not contacting treating physicians, or trying to contact them when they know they'll be unavailable (i.e. around lunchtime), simply makes the IME's job easier and it's no shock that it's incredibly common in this industry of the underhanded.
In the case of Schully v. Continental Casualty Company this was exactly the case. Click the link to read a news blurb followed by a press release and the entire opinion on the case involving IMEs and their diagnoses by proxy .
Message:
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
For security purposes, please enter the graphic text in the box below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]
Doctors make diagnoses from the proxy
But in this case, they go about it. You, not even doctors, contact those who have the medical knowledge and know the facts of the case the best. Of course they want benefits to refuse, if all they do is reading a piece of paper. You can use hundreds of excuses, written words to discredit, because words can still argue like an other doctor can not arise. Doctors from contacting, or to try to contact, if they know that she not available (i.e. at noon), simply makes the IME job easier, and it's no shock that it is incredibly common in this industry from the treacherous.
In Schully v. Continental Casualty Company, this was exactly the case. Click on the link to read a news blurb, followed by a press release and the entire opinion on the case with IMEs and their Diagnostics by the proxy.
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
Doctors make diagnoses from the proxy
But in this case, they go in. You contact not even doctors, those, that medical knowledge and know, the facts of the case the best. Of course, they want to deny benefits if all they do is that read a piece of paper. You can use hundreds of excuses, written words to discredit, because words can still argue like an other doctor can not arise. Doctors not contact, or to try, to contact if they know that she not available (i.e. at noon), facilitates the IME job easy and it's no shock that it is incredibly common in this industry from the underhanded.
In Schully v. Continental Casualty Company, this was exactly the case. Click on the link to a news blurb followed by a press release and the entire opinion on the case with IMEs and read their diagnoses of the proxy.
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
For security purposes, you give the graphic text in the box below: [press F5 if you can't read the text]
