Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Arthritis / August 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Second or third post

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
NotYet1121 - 29 Aug 2007 08:40 GMT
Hi all!  Thank you so much for your responses.  A lot of what you have
said is over my head -(hey - I'm blonde), but am betting since I am
new at this arthritis - I will be understanding this stuff with your
help.

My question is:  I have a lower back/hip injury from work that
workcomp is trying to stall on.  My FP thinks I should go to a
neurosurgeon and wc is pretending not to hear the request.  Is it
possible that I should really go to an orthopedic surgeon instead?  I
mean they are suppose to be bone specialist's - wouldn't they know
injury and arthritis things better???  Just wondering?  In what order
should I go to a RA?  I mean injury happened first????  You all are so
nice and so knowledgeable.  I know you will know.  Thanks.

NotYet1121
Adelle - 29 Aug 2007 14:43 GMT
> Hi all!  Thank you so much for your responses.  A lot of what you have
> said is over my head -(hey - I'm blonde), but am betting since I am
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> NotYet1121

This is an off topic question. But I am an atty, who did family law (until
my oldest was born 16 yrs ago). So from a worker's comp perspective:

If your doctor has done the MRI and blood tests and just says arthritis,
they aren't seeing a red light flashing to point toward one of the over 100
different specialized kinds of arthritis. You might want a Rheumatology Doc
(RD, not RA. RA is short for Rheumatoid Arthritis - the disease) to screen
it for your own treatment. But unless you are claiming that your arthritis
was cause by repetitive strain of the job or injury, you want to keep the
arthritis some what separate from your worker's comp diagnosis because if
they say some of your injury/incapacity is from arthritis, the WC board will
say its pre-existing  which reduces what is worker's comp's responsibility
and you get less money. It's only of the injury has worsened the arthritis,
or cause increased pain because of the pre-existing arthritis, that
mentioning the pre-existing arthritis becomes any factor in your case.

Listen to your FP - If your back symptoms include neuralgic pain, then you
need to see a neurologist. They are the ones who will test to see if there
is injury to the nerves, and if yes, whether the injury is permanent - what
you seem to need for treatment, and also for the wc claim. You might also
need to see an orthopedist as part of it. But if your FP is telling you
something, trust and listen to them.

I also advise you to get an atty for your claim. If I'm recalling correctly,
their fee is not taken from your award but from a separate fund within the
worker's comp system, so it won't cost you much of anything out of pocket.
And its been shown that people who are represented on these claims wind up
getting a higher award. I worked for a firm that did tons of worker's comp
cases while I was in Law School. [They maintained a list of doctors to
recommend to clients. Some on the list were excellent practitioners who
really helped their patients. Some on the list were the ones who knew how to
generate bills and records with all the correct buzz words to satisfy the WC
Board, for the clients whose injuries needed less intervention.]

Adelle

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.