> In a message dated 10/1/98 11:17:42 PM Central Daylight Time, CYRILOS(AT)aol.
> com writes:
>
> > It was suggested to me by two neurologists
> > that my symptoms would have been far worse had i not received treatment
> nine
> > days after i sought a diagnosis; and that they would have been far less
> had
> > i
> > been treated properly by the first medical group that i sought aid from,
> who
> > thought i was suffering from Lymes disease.
>
>
> I wondered the same thing for myself. FYI, I am an atty. My neuro who
> finally diagnosed me advised me I had a 50/50 % chance of winning. I
decided
> not to pursue it.
>
> If the neuros that are saying that to you will put it in writing, after a
> complete review of your medical records, and will or are willing to stated
> that it is "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the delay
in
> diagnoses caused you more harm, and that any doctor with competent knowledge
> would have diagnosed you earlier, and that early diagnosis and appropriate
> treatment would have resulted in a definite positive improvement over your
> current condition, and that your current condition was the direct result of
> the failure to timely diagnose.", I will see that you have an atty. in N.Y.
>
> Now, I doubt that you will be able to get the neuros to stick their necks
> out that far. I also believe, if they do, the defending doctors will have
> just as many to say the opposite. The bottom line is the fact that no body
> really knows as yo can tell from all the prior postings here that we all had
> a hard time getting diagnosed early, and it cannot be proved with a "
> reasonable degree of medical certainty".
>
> Go see an atty. anyway. This is not stated as legal advise, but is what I
> encountered in my instance.<legal disclaimer> LOL
>
> Bob from Houston
OOPS, I FORGOT TO CC THE LIST
From: RCookHook(AT)aol.com
Return-path: <RCookHook(AT)aol.com>
To: CYRILOS(AT)aol.com
Subject: Re: Litigation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:10:46 EDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/1/98 11:17:42 PM Central Daylight Time, CYRILOS(AT)aol.com
writes:
> It was suggested to me by two neurologists
> that my symptoms would have been far worse had i not received treatment
nine
> days after i sought a diagnosis; and that they would have been far less had
> i
> been treated properly by the first medical group that i sought aid from,
who
> thought i was suffering from Lymes disease.
I wondered the same thing for myself. FYI, I am an atty. My neuro who
finally diagnosed me advised me I had a 50/50 % chance of winning. I decided
not to pursue it.
If the neuros that are saying that to you will put it in writing, after a
complete review of your medical records, and will or are willing to stated
that it is "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the delay in
diagnoses caused you more harm, and that any doctor with competent knowledge
would have diagnosed you earlier, and that early diagnosis and appropriate
treatment would have resulted in a definite positive improvement over your
current condition, and that your current condition was the direct result of
the failure to timely diagnose.", I will see that you have an atty. in N.Y.
Now, I doubt that you will be able to get the neuros to stick their necks out
that far. I also believe, if they do, the defending doctors will have just as
many to say the opposite. The bottom line is the fact that no body really
knows as yo can tell from all the prior postings here that we all had a hard
time getting diagnosed early, and it cannot be proved with a "reasonable
degree of medical certainty".
Go see an atty. anyway. This is not stated as legal advise, but is what I
encountered in my instance.<legal disclaimer> LOL
Bob from Houston