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 / General / Dentistry / May 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Rumor has it...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
clintonz@prodigy.net - 29 Apr 2005 20:20 GMT
Which if any of the following statements are true:

1. Quackwatch, run by Stephen Barret is funded by the Aetna

2. Some dentists with investigative power on certain state
  boards are also paid consultants for Aetna!

3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence
  of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which
  , and may use the cavitat which costs big $$$ to Aetna

4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100%
  diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using
  their power to investigate/harasses any dentist which disagrees
  with their stance on what is the most profitable procedure in
  dentistry
Steven Bornfeld - 29 Apr 2005 21:52 GMT
    Just a couple of comments

> Which if any of the following statements are true:
>
> 1. Quackwatch, run by Stephen Barret is funded by the Aetna

    I have not heard this.  Can you provide some more information/references?

> 2. Some dentists with investigative power on certain state
>    boards are also paid consultants for Aetna!

    This would not surprise me in the least.  I believe if you look at
state regulatory boards nationally, you will find plenty of potential
foxes guarding the chicken coops.

> 3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence
>    of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which
>    , and may use the cavitat which costs big $$$ to Aetna

    I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a
procedure known as "cavitat" per se.  Claims may of course be submitted
for a similar osseous surgical procedure, and the consultants of Aetna
or any other insurance carrier is within their rights to question
reimbursement for any service outside the particular service contract.
Therefore, I doubt very much in the extreme that these procedures are
costing Aetna any astronomical sum.
    The dental boards of course are charged with regulating the standard of
care, and may choose to take action against licensees they feel are
practicing outside the standard of care.  You may of course choose to
disagree with the standard of care.  I may as well; but unlike you I do
at my peril.
    The issue as to whether insurance companies have undue influence on the
standard as understood by state licensing bodies is a legitimate one
that I agree bears watching carefully.

> 4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100%
>    diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using
>    their power to investigate/harasses any dentist which disagrees
>    with their stance on what is the most profitable procedure in
>    dentistry

    Again, I would ask you to give evidence for this statement.  I have
never, NEVER heard any dentist (much less a dental board)claim that
x-rays are 100% accurate.

Steve

Signature

Cut the nonsense to reply

clintonz@prodigy.net - 29 Apr 2005 22:28 GMT
> Just a couple of comments
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>     I have not heard this.  Can you provide some more information/references?

This is a rumor I heard. I can't verify that it is true/untrue
but I may get more information. I thought somebody here might
also know if this was true.

> > 3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence
> >    of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which
> >    , and may use the cavitat which costs big $$$ to Aetna

>     I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a
> procedure known as "cavitat" per se.  Claims may of course be
submitted  for a similar osseous surgical procedure, and the
consultants of Aetna  or any other insurance carrier is within their
rights to question  reimbursement for any service outside the
particular service contract.  Therefore, I doubt very much in the
extreme that these procedures are
> costing Aetna any astronomical sum.
>     The dental boards of course are charged with regulating the standard of
> care, and may choose to take action against licensees they feel are
> practicing outside the standard of care.  You may of course choose to

> disagree with the standard of care.  I may as well; but unlike you I do
> at my peril.
>     The issue as to whether insurance companies have undue influence on the
> standard as understood by state licensing bodies is a legitimate one
> that I agree bears watching carefully.

I'm not sure that any Insurance companies ever cover the cavitat.
You are right, they probably don't. I think in at least few cases
procedures similar to cavitational surgery have been covered but in
many cases they don't cover it. However
if these are proven to valid diagnoses insurance companies could still
be sued, as was mentioned in the threads disscussing the Cavitat
lawsuit, for a number of reasons.

More importantly though the dental boards seem to be targeting
dentists who do osteoncrosis/osteomyletis/cavitational surgery
mainly because the existence of these legions is not accepted
as possible without a positive x-ray, especially in non-acute
forms.

> > 4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100%
> >    diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Steve

In fact in practice this is true. Many oral surgeons are refusing to
treat patients with various jaw infections (shown to be present in
later surgies/biopsies) based on false negative x-rays, and dentists
who remove root canals that are not clearly infected according to
x-rays, (based on current accepted standards) are subject to attack by
state boards.

I don't want to mention any specifics but I will email you one
reference.
Joel M. Eichen - 29 Apr 2005 22:47 GMT
> > Just a couple of comments
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> but I may get more information. I thought somebody here might
> also know if this was true.

REPLY

Did you hear the rumor from the same
rumor mill that explained how amalgam poisons people?

Joel

> > > 3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence
> > >    of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> I don't want to mention any specifics but I will email you one
> reference.
Steven Bornfeld - 29 Apr 2005 23:01 GMT
>>Just a couple of comments
>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> be sued, as was mentioned in the threads disscussing the Cavitat
> lawsuit, for a number of reasons.

    Of course, anyone can be sued for anything.  However (and I'm not up to
date on the case law here) liability for failure to provide coverage for
any particular medical treatment is limited under ERISA.  I know that
there have been attempts to overturn the protections granted the
insurance companies, but I'm not aware that any have succeeded.

> More importantly though the dental boards seem to be targeting
> dentists who do osteoncrosis/osteomyletis/cavitational surgery
> mainly because the existence of these legions is not accepted
> as possible without a positive x-ray, especially in non-acute
> forms.

    Dental boards will target unprofessional conduct--that is their job.
We could argue as to whether cavitational surgery constitutes
unprofessional conduct, but I won't.  I have no reason to think the true
believers are being other than totally sincere in their convictions.

>>>4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100%
>>>   diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I don't want to mention any specifics but I will email you one
> reference.

    Refusing to treat based on lack of radiologic findings is very
different from asserting that x-rays are 100% effective.  Certainly it
is accepted that diagnosis of intraosseous lesions based solely on
radiographs frequently is difficult esp. when the cortical plates have
been neither expanded nor perforated.  Furthermore, biopsies are
frequently done of intraosseous lesions.  However, a surgeon should have
some justification for performing osseous surgery.  There should (in
other words) be SOME evidence indicating surgical intervention is
necessary--whether radiological or otherwise.

Steve

Signature

Cut the nonsense to reply

clintonz@prodigy.net - 29 Apr 2005 23:38 GMT
>     Refusing to treat based on lack of radiologic findings is very
> different from asserting that x-rays are 100% effective.  Certainly it

However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present
but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has
cancer but it cannot be seen on CT. Does that mean no surgeon
ever operates and the patient dies.

> is accepted that diagnosis of intraosseous lesions based solely on
> radiographs frequently is difficult esp. when the cortical plates have
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> other words) be SOME evidence indicating surgical intervention is
> necessary--whether radiological or otherwise.

You've lost me, I'll have to look up intraosseous and osseous,
and cortical (I just spent 5 minutes looking but still can't find it).
However if either an intraosseous or osseous infection is present
without pain it seems unreasonable that no action can be taken if it is
not clear on an x-ray since it is unlikely that
anything else could defintely be linked to infection. Yet infections do
exist inside and outside of the jawbone/teeth that do not show on x-ray
OR cause pain, and that are not culturable in the blood. Also, surely a
patient should have the right to have a root canal removed even if it
is not necesssarily infected, yet the boards appear to be indirectly
forcing patients to keep these treatments.

cz





Steven Bornfeld - 29 Apr 2005 23:56 GMT
> However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present
> but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has
> cancer but it cannot be seen on CT. Does that mean no surgeon
> ever operates and the patient dies.

    If there is an infection there should be some clinical signs.  I assume
the patient presents with some sort of symptom, and some clinical or
radiologic sign points to infection.  Same with cancer.  There is some
reason to suspect cancer before treatment can commence.

>>is accepted that diagnosis of intraosseous lesions based solely on
>>radiographs frequently is difficult esp. when the cortical plates
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> exist inside and outside of the jawbone/teeth that do not show on x-ray
> OR cause pain, and that are not culturable in the blood.

    There should be some reason to suspect infection is present, right?  Or
am I missing something?

 Also, surely a
> patient should have the right to have a root canal removed even if it
> is not necesssarily infected, yet the boards appear to be indirectly
> forcing patients to keep these treatments.

    No, a patient has no absolute right to mandate treatment.  An informed
patient has the right to refuse treatment, as does a doctor.  The only
treatment a doctor may not ethically refuse to do is in a lifesaving
situation where the patient is unable to give consent.  The doctor is
absolved of responsibility related to failure to obtain informed consent
by good samaritan laws.

Steve

Steve

> cz
>
>  
>  
>  
>  

Signature

Cut the nonsense to reply

clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 01:03 GMT
> > However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present
> > but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> radiologic sign points to infection.  Same with cancer.  There is some
> reason to suspect cancer before treatment can commence.

Well, what is happening with some of these osteomyletic/osteonecrotic
infections is that some legions cannot
be seen. In my case a local OS found soft bone and there where
radilogic indications of erosion of the maxilla and borderline
radiolucent infection, but a lot of patients are finding, me
included that the extent of these infections is not clear at
all from regular CT or panorex.

In fact I know one person who recently had a jawbone graft for
osteonecrosis at a well known research university. They found
schlerotic bone, mush bone and what appeared to be a cavitation,
though none of it apparently was evident on x-ray before hand.

pain, and that are not culturable in the blood.

>     There should be some reason to suspect infection is present, right?  Or
> am I missing something?

The patient obviously knows in jaw osteomyletis but the symptoms
as in leg osteo are general so that the OS cannot rule jaw infection in
or out. Many of these legions (especially chronic OM) do not show up
well on radiograph or MRi because of the thinness
of the bones in the jaw. This was also found in some
of the studies done for the FDA on the cavitat, so in essence
these infections are silent.

>   Also, surely a
> > patient should have the right to have a root canal removed even if it
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>     No, a patient has no absolute right to mandate treatment.  An informed
> patient has the right to refuse treatment, as does a doctor.

However in the case of a RC the dentist has altered the tooth
or introduced a foreign substance in the root so IMO the patient
has a right to have that removed, just like a patient could
probably demand a hip implant be removed. Also the patient could
have originally opted for an extraction so I do not think it
is ethical to later force them to keep the RC tooth

cz
Steven Bornfeld - 30 Apr 2005 02:50 GMT
> Well, what is happening with some of these osteomyletic/osteonecrotic
> infections is that some legions cannot
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> as in leg osteo are general so that the OS cannot rule jaw infection in
> or out.

    Help me out here.  Why and how does a patient present to a doctor to
have this diagnosed?  Does the patient know something is wrong, or is it
discovered as an incidental finding?  I am assuming there is pain,
fever, inflammation that brings the patient to the doctor, but you say
that these infections are frequently silent.  I know you had health
problems, but I don't know if you suffered jaw pain or if  someone just
had a notion to do a biopsy for some other reason.

 Many of these legions (especially chronic OM) do not show up
> well on radiograph or MRi because of the thinness
> of the bones in the jaw. This was also found in some
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> cz

    No one is forcing anyone to keep a tooth.  I'm sure an enterprising
patient will find someone willing to do it.  Of course, any dentist who
agreed to extract a tooth without being able to document a clinical
reason for doing so (sorry, patient request does not qualify) should be
prepared to defend against a charge of negligence.  A patient can NOT
consent to negligent treatment.

Steve

Signature

Cut the nonsense to reply

clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 04:47 GMT
>     Help me out here.  Why and how does a patient present to a >doctor
to  have this diagnosed?  Does the patient know something >is wrong, or
is it discovered as an incidental finding?

To answer this question I am drawing on my own expriences as
well as others I have talked to. But I am not an expert.

Basically as I understand there are three types of possible
infections osteonecrotic/cavitational, osteomyletic, and perhaps
some types of infection with a lot of bacterial/fungal growth
in the bone, probably included in some terminology as cavitational.

osteomyletic infection is usually acute or chronic. Acute infection
does show clearly on radiographs and I think is fast moving so soon
produces evidence infection as leg and arms.

People with chronic osteomyletic infection are usually aware
that something is wrong (especially if it damages the nerves and
believe me sometimes it does) and go to the doctor where they
usually initially misdiagnose it. Eventually tests may be done
such as a thin sliced CT which show some erosion of the bone
or an MRI which hows possible problems in the nerve, or sinus problems
may develop from the jaw infection visible on the CT
as polyps on the bottom of the sinus, mucosal thickening and or
fluid level or sinus tracts, but usually the extent of the infection in
the jawbone is severely underestimated by the scan. Once surgery is
done findings may include, mushy bone, inflammation, bacterial/fungal
infestation, sinusitus, holes
in the floor of the sinus etc and even with treatment the infection has
a strong tendency to recur, i.e. as is the case with leg and arm
chronic om, it is difficult to eradicate even with
abx.

I think in some cases, like my case the amalgam seems to leak,
even depositing copper on the nerve pulp in one case I know of.  This
damages the surrounding jawbone which allows these infections to defeat
the regular jawbone defenses and really set in.

In other cases these infections are traced to poorly done root
canals, use of fosomax or even cracks in the tooth.

 I am assuming there is pain,
> fever, inflammation that brings the patient to the doctor, but you say
> that these infections are frequently silent.  I know you had health
> problems, but I don't know if you suffered jaw pain or if  someone just
> had a notion to do a biopsy for some other reason.

No, I could tell something is wrong. No pain, which for seem
reason seems more common for men with OM and less for women.
i could tell something was wrong because the jaw felt funny.
Eventually I went to a local OS to have an extraction, but
he didn't clean the bone above the root apparently, as I expected and
just commented that some of my jawbone was unusully soft when
he (burred down?) a jagged area, "like an 80 year old". Six months
later the infection spread and I really got sick. Then had a CT which
confirmed problems and decided to have surgery done by someone who
would really get all the infection out since the infection extended
over three/four teeth (and I still have infection in the left maxilla)
. The only biopsy I had was after surgery.

(The UMD was very reluctant to read the CT scans even after I was
referred by another local OS becasue of the soft bone and wanted to do
high power panorex ,but I refused, because the surgeon seemed
very unknowledgeable uncomfortable with the surgery and I thought
that I should get an opinion based on the CT before doing anything
else or getting any more radiation.)

I actually have the scans of the infected jaw area and a 3D scan of the
area on CD which I can email you , plus the radiological report and
the email response from UMD about the CT, but I'll save that for
another day because I'm getting a little tired.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 30 Apr 2005 17:49 GMT
>>    Help me out here.  Why and how does a patient present to a >doctor
>
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> the email response from UMD about the CT, but I'll save that for
> another day because I'm getting a little tired.

    Interesting history--thanks for sharing it.
    There are a lot of metabolic bone diseases that probably fly under the
usual radar.  I'm not able to comment on whether mercury or copper
deposition may have been a factor in your case, but clearly there is a
whole spectrum of conditions that may be recognized as metabolic
(osseous dysplasia) or of uncertain pathogenesis, incl. the compromised
bone metabolism seen with bis-phosphonate use.  I agree that because of
the differing training seen with different specialties, one or another
may be more inclined to lean a certain way in the differential
diagnosis, and mistakes are certainly made.
    I personally know a woman who developed shoulder girdle pain a couple
of years ago.  She had a hx of breast ca, surgery and radiotherapy about
25 years before.  After multiple radiographic studies the concensus was
metastatic ca, but after opening sugically all that was seen was
degenerated bone, and then the presumptive diagnosis was
osteoradionecrosis.  Two years later she suddenly developed chest pain,
and studies now reveal a pathological rib fracture.  No one is sticking
their neck out now for a diagnosis.  We'll have to see.
    These situations are frustrating for most clinicians.  I can only
imagine how patients must feel.

Steve

Signature

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 18:59 GMT
.

>     Interesting history--thanks for sharing it.
>     There are a lot of metabolic bone diseases that probably fly under the
> usual radar.  I'm not able to comment on whether mercury or copper
> deposition may have been a factor in your case, but clearly there is a

An additional comment. Basically, the problem filling was on
tooth 3 and 4, which was very near the infected areas of
the maxilla. I have the original x-ray's of the filling around
here somewhere which I will post if I can find them and scan
them in. There is no question in my mind that whatever is happening in
the jaw was precipitated by the filling and I don't
have any indication of a metabolic disorder. In fact I have one image
on the CT disk which shows what appears to be a tunnel going from some
of these teeth up into the jaw bone.

Also, many other people with chronic OM feel that the cause
is staph or psuedococci?, that are normally considered
normal flora, but get into the bone where they shouldn't
be as a result of physical or chemical trauma. In fact, all these
things are true of OM in the leg, so even from that standpoint it seems
likely that a simmilar disease process can exist in the jaw.

> whole spectrum of conditions that may be recognized as metabolic
> (osseous dysplasia) or of uncertain pathogenesis, incl. the compromised
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:50 GMT
> Help me out here.  Why and how does a patient present to a doctor to
> have this diagnosed?  Does the patient know something is wrong, or is it
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> problems, but I don't know if you suffered jaw pain or if  someone just
> had a notion to do a biopsy for some other reason.

REPLY

Many first find out when they read
Jan Drew on SMD where she conmtinues
to continue to warn people.

*IF* anyone has HEALTH!!!!! problems or
BREAK DANCE!!! problems they gots it.

Joel
Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:47 GMT
> > However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present
> > but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> radiologic sign points to infection.  Same with cancer.  There is some
> reason to suspect cancer before treatment can commence.

REPLY

Steve,

This ties in with lack of ability to
Break Dance. If you gots NICO
you cannot Break Dance.

Joel
Mark & Steven Bornfeld - 30 Apr 2005 17:57 GMT
>>>However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present
>>>but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Joel

Joel--

    While the acronym is too cute by half, and the proposed treatment and
patina of persecution worn by the advocates of NICO is off-putting, I'm
not ready to conclude that there aren't conditions out there that are
(appropriately or not) falling under the general heading of NICO.  Since
you recognized and acknowledged some of the new osseous metabolic
problems earlier than most, I'm guessing you also recognize that some of
these lesions may in fact exist, even if you (as I do) bristle at the
alternative health zealots that have co-opted the issue.

Steve

Signature

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 13:59 GMT
Any dentist in this world is aware of spongiform bone, cortical bone, etc.

The unaware patient believes its more like a solid block of Formica.

A little time with a microscope could sure help out ClintonZ.

PS- To ClintonZ. Make sure your eye
is at the right end or the images like very tiny.

Joel

> >>>However, it presents quite a dilema if infection is present
> >>>but not discernable based on x-rays. Suppose a patient has
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:46 GMT
> > Refusing to treat based on lack of radiologic findings is very
> > different from asserting that x-rays are 100% effective.  Certainly
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> cancer but it cannot be seen on CT. Does that mean no surgeon
> ever operates and the patient dies.

Hey Dude!

This is why we have dentists. You do not
know what you are talking about when it
comes to pathology and histology.

Take a few courses or read a few textbooks.

Joel
Joel M. Eichen - 30 Apr 2005 11:45 GMT
> >> I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a
> >>procedure known as "cavitat" per se.  Claims may of course be

EXPLANATION

Terminology.

Cavitat is the Denver company that is sueing
Aetna for refusal to pay and sueing for claiming
that such a thing as NICO even exists.

Joel

PS- The technology is good for treating what
is perhaps a non-existent disease.
clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 19:22 GMT
> EXPLANATION
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Joel

Who sued Aetna? Oh, Aetna, sued Who.
Well Who is on first? (for the trial).

> PS- The technology is good for treating what
> is perhaps a non-existent disease.

Well in the FDA trials fo the cavitat they did find
jaw legions. Cavtiations definately exit. aetna is
going to run into BIG trouble trying to prove they
don't. their only case can be that the cavitat doesn't
work a lot of the time and some high frequency of misdiagnosis.
Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 14:02 GMT
> > EXPLANATION
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Who sued Aetna? Oh, Aetna, sued Who.
> Well Who is on first? (for the trial).

Cavitat sued Aetna. Aetna is a huge
company and employs lawyers as defense
strategy not as plaintiff.

Here is the COMPLAINT.

http://quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/RacketeeringAction.htm

Joel

> > PS- The technology is good for treating what
> > is perhaps a non-existent disease.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> don't. their only case can be that the cavitat doesn't
> work a lot of the time and some high frequency of misdiagnosis.
Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 14:04 GMT
Here's the case:

12.       After Plaintiffs applied for FDA approval in 2001, and at all
times hence to the present day, Quackwatch, NCAHF, Barrett, Baratz, Dodes,
and Schissel disseminated and published on the internet and in other media
to the public, including Aetna., among others, the Dodes & Schissel Paper
and other information regarding the use and efficacy of diagnostic tools,
such as the CAVITAT, in the detection of infected cavities within jaw bones,
a condition termed neuralagia inducing cavitational osteonecrosis ("NICO").

           13.       Specifically, said these entities and persons asserted
that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of NICO as a
medical condition or the diagnostic methods used to identify the medical
condition.  They asserted that dental practice which engages the diagnosis
of NICO is fraudulent and that the submission of insurance claims for such
practice is insurance fraud and is a violation of dental licensing
requirements.  These assertions were false and misleading and defamatory.

> > EXPLANATION
> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> don't. their only case can be that the cavitat doesn't
> work a lot of the time and some high frequency of misdiagnosis.
clintonz@prodigy.net - 30 Apr 2005 21:44 GMT
> > >> I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a
> > >>procedure known as "cavitat" per se.  Claims may of course be
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Joel

Aetna is sueing Who?
Just one question.
Does Who know he is being sued by Aetna?
Joel M. Eichen - 01 May 2005 14:04 GMT
Aetna is not sueing. Aetna is the defendant.

Joel

> > > >> I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover
> a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Just one question.
> Does Who know he is being sued by Aetna?
 
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.