Tl:dr your statement don’t make no sense to me, please clarify What is “‘practice’ without a medical license” supposed to mean here? If that’s “make a medical judgment on somebody else’s medical situation without being a doctor”, then you’re describing a lot more than just insurance companies. Governing bodies like Congress and the Supreme Court which need to make public health decisions? Yes. Personal injury firms like the one this short’s creator is a part of? Yes. Emergency services like fire departments, EMT’s, and 911 phone operators? Yes. Every boss who has ever decided to give an employee a free sick day because they don’t appear fit for work at that moment? Yes. Every non-doctor person who has to take care of a child, elderly family member, or other invalid? Yes. Having to ‘practice’ medicine is a natural consequence of the facts that (1) humans get sick/injured, (2) humans care for sick/injured people, and (3) not everybody can - nor should - become a doctor. Assuming you’re not suggesting that no non-doctor should *ever* ‘practice’ medicine without first going through medical school, residency, and all that; what *are* you trying to suggest?
@@4364742thats why medical insurance is inherently flawed. Even more so given the high turnaround time for cases and the urgency for immediate treatment after incidents. All the examples you provided is not the same as insurance. Governing bodies make general laws, not medical practice on any individuals. Non-doctors can have their judgements, but ultimately do not hold any power over the doctors. Insurance companies, given the otherwise unreasonably high medical bills, are the only entity that can deny a doctor's recommendations, because the patient often time does not have another way of paying. Medical coverages should not be making money or a business because even given an ambiguous case where the necessity of a treatment is uncertain, we should still lean towards losing money and possibly saving a person's life, rather than thinking from a business perspective. Public healthcare is the way to go.
Im not even really interested in doing anything related law, yet this man still gets me to watch his videos with close attention and keeps me interested through all of them
That's why he does trials. He knows how to relay information accurately & charismatically. I practice in his jurisdiction (Georgia), he knows his shit. Or at least, calls out insurance's bullshit that ive also dealt with for years. Ive been screaming it to the clouds for years, and its not just health insurance, it's the whole industry. I'd hire him for a civil case if I was a Plaintiff. Even if he doesn't know the specific area of law, I'll do the research, and tell him you just deliver it. 😆
Same. He gets me hyped up about legal issues I’ve never even heard or thought of. It almost makes me wish I had a legal issue where I needed his representation. 😂
@@chillmemes5865 not their job. All they have to prove is that the treatment or test was unnecessary. Whether the doctor was upchraging, incompetent or something else is not their issue
Just watched a video by StyroPyro how he has an unknown illness and needed to get a scan if some sort. Not only did his insurance that he oays $10,000 a year for DENY him getting the scan, but after he fought it and eventually got the scan, he had to pay TWICE as much for the scan with insurance than it would have cost without it. I thank you and lawyers like you for fighting these horrendous, predatory companies.
In 2002 a doctor told me to my face that I was "just a 15 year old girl who is making up pain for attention" and refused to keep seeing me. I'm permanently disabled now and really pissed my parents didn't sue
I had a pediatrician who was convinced I had ocular migraines and was that at age 10 I was just "being dramatic" when I was having seizures despite having seizures as an infant.. took a long time to finally get a neurology referral and seizure medication, I went into remission shortly after starting meds so I probably had several seizures I wouldn't have if he wasn't an idiot
It is legitimately criminal that some insurance companies will do just about everything they possibly can to avoid doing the one single thing we pay them to do.
Doctors will tend to protect other doctors, but the general idea of medical necessity denials baffles me. He’s a licensed physician is he not? They’re my primary care, they know my medical record, or they’re employed by a hospital, under mountains of standard operating procedures and oversight. Why is a doctor who doesn’t know me, has never seen me, hasn’t practiced in years determining if my procedure is medically necessary.
It's not that simple, surgeons know that there is inherent uncertainty of whether surgery will actually be necessary and often only by performing the surgery will show that. Like if a patient starts having seizures a few years after road traffic collision where they may have been concussed. Will a particular type of brain surgery actually prevent the seizures? If after the surgery the seizures not only continue but also get worse, then the surgery was unnecessary. The theorized cause of the seizures was disproven by the surgery failing to work as intended. Surgeons tell patients "this may not work, do you really want to try this treatment? Even if might do nothing?" "I'll go for it doc, even if there's a slim chance it's my only chance" But when the surgery doesn't have the intended effect then the surgery was unnecessary. They can say that only based on the results of the surgery despite the surgical affects being successful. The nature of necessity is difficult as you can't so easily gauge the value of taking a chance on a treatment which is uncertain because it's hard to tell what causes the symptoms.
@@Treblaine that’s the issue though, if you have a CT because you’re suspecting a stroke but it turns out to be just a headache. IMO your insurance should still be forced to cover it. You’re a licensed medical professional. You should have the authority of what’s good for the patient. The non practicing ortho doc hired by the insurance shouldn’t have a say of what’s medically necessary, he’s not the one in the trauma room. If the insurance is suspecting fraudulent practices than they should be going after the doctor or the facility after the fact. They shouldn’t just get to say no and put it on the facility or patient to cover the expense. Same thing with networks, your insurance should work any instance it’s a licensed professional. Not just when they worked on a special contract discount.
@@AnthonyDukesConsulting you can't just sign away responsibility. A waiver is not a "get out of lawsuit free card", a waiver is establishing that you did in fact do what you're legally responsible to do, and generally that legal responsibility is "informed consent". Did you actually properly inform the patient or not? If you did and they consented to it, that is the only waiver that matters. One without the other is worthless. The distinction is a court in a lawsuit makes a decision based on facts learned as a result of surgery. But a decision to go ahead with surgery is made BEFORE the outcome of the surgery is known for certain. So it's possible a surgeon made the right decision with the information the surgeon had at the time.
@@Mr.Buckshots A CT scan is not treatment, it is a test. It is a necessary part of the differential diagnosis. Some test may be unnecessary because no matter what the result it won't change the treatment, like a cracked rib. In which case you should tell the hospital you're not paying for a test that their doctor said you should get that was worthless. Just tell them to void the bill for that test or have it settled in court. Your insurance for your health may cover elective speculative surgery, because you may think it's worth taking a risk to remove a mole that has a 10% chance of being malignant. It depends on your specific coverage. But when you're suing someone else you're held to the legal standard of causality, you are arguing in court, "the defendant's actions did cause X condition which made Y treatment a necessity". Certainly there are a lot of worthless treatments out there, especially where they're only implying a benefit but are careful to avoid ever actually saying it will cure or mitigate a specific medical ailment. Like they say "you'll feel better" well I'll feel better after watching a movie but it didn't cure specific back pain. Chiropracty is not fraud or malpractice, it's like getting a massage or spa treatment, they're careful not to make specific medical claims but just says it is what it is, and give it a go "if you think it helps, it's up to you". "You should have the authority of what’s good for the patient" No, a doctor has the authority to advise and administer what's good for the patient, but what is good is a balance of probabilities that the patient has the final call on or if the patient is incapacitated then whoever has delegated legal authority in a shared or total capacity. " non practicing ortho doc hired by the insurance shouldn’t have a say of what’s medically necessary, he’s not the one in the trauma room." He may have a better perspective on what's necessary because he is not in one single trauma room but is looking at treatments all over the world and seeing the outcomes of both those who were treated and untreated. Remember, if the hospital gave YOU an unnecessary treatment then the entity you should sue is the hospital! They can't say it is malpractice because that is telling a jury in another trial what their verdict should be when it's not the job of an expert witness to tell a jury what their verdict should be. It may very well be that it definitely was unnecessary yet not malpractice. Because they were careful to say it wasn't a treatment for the condition or they had good reason to think it would treat the condition but were mistaken through no culpable fault of their own. "If the insurance is suspecting fraudulent practice" It's not fraud. Fraud is when you KNOW it doesn't work or you should know it doesn't work. It's hard to account for things like the placebo effect and regression to the mean. People are going to heal after an injury, they may heal without surgery. You have things like Good Samaritan laws where you're protected from liability if you acted in good faith to help someone even if it doesn't help or even hurts them in some non-extreme way.
Then they should insure their client and go after the doctor who did the allegedly unnecessary procedure for their money back. This shouldn't be a difficult solve at all
They know it's way easier to just not pay than to pay and then try and claw back some of that payment. It's why their default is to not pay and hope the plaintiff settles for far less than what they're owed.
… the point is that the treatment is legitimate. The patient / client followed the doctor’s orders and usually got better. The whole it was “over treatment and unnecessary” is nonsense. I wouldn’t sue by client’s treating doctor for my client, because the treating doc didn’t do anything wrong.
Exactly. He’s saying that if the hired gun for the insurance company is taking the stance that the treatment was “unnecessary” then it would technically qualify as malpractice in many cases, but yet the insurance company stops just short of making that accusation. They want to “justify” why they won’t pay, but won’t accuse the treating physician of malpractice because they know it’s not true.
This is the problem, insurance companies want you to go to the doctor as little as possible to save money but lawyers want you to go as MUCH as possible, even if it’s not actually necessary so that it improves their case and they can make more money. Doctors are caught in the crossfire because if they deny treatment even if it’s not necessary they could be opening themselves up to litigation. Doctor often just do the treatments to cover themselves.
Here's an example of an "unnecessary surgery": rather than take a small sample of a mole and wait to see if it's dangerous they give the option for surgery to remove the mole and THEN do a very thorough biopsy of what's removed. But the biopsy reveals the mole is entirely benign and didn't need to be removed. The patient was informed that the surgery was LIKELY unnecessary but only by performing the surgery was it found that it wasn't necessary. This can happen for personal injury, the doctor can accurately say "It may be that this surgery won't benefit you at all because your diagnosis is unclear" "yes, I know the risks, but I'm willing to risk surgery that may be worthless" That is informed consent. That is not malpractice.
That's not how the term is normally used. Usually it's used to mean making up or grossly exaggerating a risk to make a patient think they need surgery they don't need. When I was on vacation, I had afib and was told by a cardiologist I needed a pacemaker. He wanted to put one in right then and tried to convince me not to leave without it. When I got home and saw my own cardiologist, he said it would have been ridiculous to get a pacemaker for someone in his 50s who has only had afib four times in eight years, and 3 of the 4 times it went away on its own without a cardioversion. A lot of surgeons are psychopaths, it's in the top ten careers for them (See Oxford psychologist Kevin Dutton's "The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success" for the data on that) and it's much easier for a psychopath to abandon morality to make a little extra money, even if it means risking someone's life. That is not informed consent, it is malpractice.
@@paulh2981 It's also just a differing assessment of risk. The hard reality is that doctors advise on risk but the informed consent is more than just a rubber-stamp it is your vital part of the decision making. The surgery likely won't do nothing but will it do enough to be worth the risk? I don't think it is a clear cut matter of any treatment having a guaranteed effect with a guaranteed bad alternative without treatment. Everyone is looking to doctors for orders when all they can really do is advise.
Well I think this also sheds light on the fact that not every case has a perpetrator, like legally we like to think that someone is always liable for the damages, but in reality, there are often circumstances where no one can truly be put at fault, and I’m not talking about acts of god, I’m talking about one person doing one thing that they would have no reason to believe would lead to any damages, and another person doing another thing that they would think to be harmless, but little did either of them know, those 2 things together created a problem. Neither person would reasonably expect that such actions would result the way they did because they circumstances were unusual and unique.
This short really shows to me the difference between law firms. If you understand the strategies of your opposition, then you can plan around it. I imagine there are some law firms that may not have this level of knowledge about insurance lawyer, or even if they do, maybe don’t really have a plan of attack. Your point in conveying this contradiction to the jury seems like a big deal. You COULD simply argue the facts, but that’s not going to resonate with the jury. This video made me realize the art in understand people and knowing how something sounds to them when they hear it. I absolutely believe you when you say this stuff doesn’t work against your firm. The insight you have and the thought you’ve put into your strategies really shows.
I work in medical billing for workers compensation and I was excused from jury duty because I told them I had a bias against physicians advisors who they said would be testifying in the case. When they asked me why I said "i think every physician advisor has purchased their one way guaranteed ticket to hell for a quick buck" and I stand by that.
I read the story of a doctor who worked for an insurance company to validate that such and so procedure was actually necessary. One case came across her desk of a disabled person who needed a device in order to communicate. She had to fight the insurance company to get it approved. After that case, she quit working for insurance companies. Insurance companies do not care about their customers' health and well-being. They just care about money and finding ways not to pay out claims.
I want to know how consistent malpractice (multiple botched surgeries leaving forceps or blood cloth inside the client) that is supposed to award 9 figures, but they are using NDA to keep them quiet while the Dr. still gets to keep their license. The verdict was years ago, still haven't paid a cent and there are still foreign objects inside the client. Care is no longer decided by doctors, it's overseen by lawyers.
I don't know if I've learned much about law or lawyering from these shorts, but I *have* learned that if an insurance company says "no" I should definitely push harder.
The most sensible explanation is because the insurance company's expert (also an accredited doctor) is hired to speak to whether treatment was medically necessary by reviewing the medical records and, often, examine the Plaintiff. That's it. For the expert to go as far as to whether another doctor committed malpractice would be overstepping, unless the excessive treatment is especially egregious. Say Plaintiff gets injured in a car accident and their doctor has the Plaintiff do physical therapy for 4 weeks, 3 times a week. Plaintiff feels a little better after those 12 visits, but the doctor thinks the Plaintiff's condition can still improve. The doctor orders more physical therapy, and after another 12 visits, the Plaintiff feels roughly the same after the 2nd trial of 12 visits. 24 physical therapy visits later, the Plaintiff's doctor should be consider whether the Plaintiff is at maximum medical improvement, but instead he orders 30 more visits. These visits yield no additional benefits for the Plaintiff, but cost an assload of money. The insurance company's expert is going to identify that the physical therapy treatment should have stopped after 24 visits. Not all doctors are fleecing their patients like this, but it certainly goes on with an alarming amount of frequency. Whether an insurance company's expert is going to call it malpractice, though, is up to the individual expert. Most are not going to make that call unless it is clear and obvious.
Note for context: In many cases, the doctor was chosen by the personal injury lawyer, not the client. Many personal injury lawyers send their clients to their favorite doctors, who they know will run up the fees. Often, the doctors have a stake in the outcome of the personal injury case - either because the lawyer pays them directly, or because the doctor has agreed to defer payment until the end of the patient’s lawsuit.
I was a jour once in a case that involved a medial testimony. We all suspected that the treatment done was a friend referred by a friend. We still gave them the money. But not as much
Their argument is: nobody did anything wrong but we're not going to pay anyway. And that argument can ne dismantled into: if nobody else is wrong, you're wrong for not paying.
It really sucks that these trained medical professionals that we are forced to rely on can screw up and not get in trouble, even if they ruined someone's life
My insurance company had spies inside those doctors offices and insurance companies. They knew that all the people in the car I rear-ended in a Swoop and Stop, were in a gang of crooks who were making money off accidents. They had all been in other accidents just months before. There had been no damage to their car. No photos had been taken, no police report made even though a cop had been there. 364 days later I was sued. They had photos of their car with a massive round dent in the trunk, like it had been backed into a metal pole. The car was reported stolen after and could not be seen. I won the case.
Different doctors can come to different conclusions about what a patient needs without being in violation of the standard of care. Doctors can make bad decisions without breaching the standard of care.
Surely you can't apply knowledge in hindsight in court? Ex: If a client was in a car crash and came in with severe leg pain so the doctor orders an X-ray which doesn't reveal any fractures or breaks. The x-ray in hindsight wasn't NEEDED but it's completion allowed diagnoses to be ruled out.
No one said that. The point he's making is that the insurance companies never blame the doctor, whether it's needed treatment or not. They always go for the client who is just following the recommendations of the doctor, you know, the guy with a medical License and knows their medical history.
Also, you often don't know it is overtreatment until after you've given the treatment and the treatment doesn't work. There's far more liability in malpractice for undertreatment than overtreatment. When doctors explain the risk to patients "so do you want to risk doing nothing or risk doing something" a lot worry about doing nothing.
@@suoh6431 I'm doubtful any medical doctor engaged as an expert by any insurance carrier has "blamed the patient" for following their treating doctor's prescriptions. I would love to see the transcripts where that has actually occurred. Further, the assertion that the patient was given excessive or unnecessary treatment is not the same as alleging malpractice. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. It requires an assessment against standards of care. However, the patient would have to sue the treating physician for medical malpractice, which is an entirely separate legal pursuit. For a doctor to get on the witness stand in a personal injury suit and claim that the treating physician committed malpractice could lead to separate litigation against the doctor making the allegation.
Malpractice covers only harm done to the patient by doctors. Overtesting and running unnecessary tests isn't harmful, and some nervous patients may request those. That is something that shouldn't be covered by insurance. If they were, everyone's premiums go up.
In fairness, it can be clear in hindsight a treatment wasn't necessary, when at the time the evidence pointed towards needing the treatment and the doctor was following his training.
The insurance in my case, sent me yo a specialist who borrowed an office. It was not clean and had no certificates hanging. He asked for things I Was not asked to provide. He was a joke. When the physio therapist found that insurance would pay, the condition might require several years. I am competent at sports injury massage.
Remember boys and girls, if you're ever called for jury duty, always side with the little guy against large corporations 100% of the time. It's your moral obligation. Fuck the facts.
Once a doctor tried to give my grandpa a heart procedure that, when you knew his medical history, was not only useless but also harmful. The doctor tried to make him sign on a corner in a "we need you signature" kinda way. My grandpa called my grandma to get her opinion, who in turn called my mom who studied medicine for 6 years before dropping out : she knows her stuff. The doctor tried the "your father is going to die" to which I'd say, the man was like 83, of course he was going to die at some point: either by his brain that was somehow working perfectly despite having glaring issues, his heart that was malformed or maybe his type 2 diabetes...Also, said he had the okay from the cardiologist but when called, he had no idea what that was about and said it was a stupid idea and to not get the procedure. This son of a B clearly saw an old man he could get surgery experience on... My grandparents' neighbour ended up getting said surgery (same hospital so probably same doctor) and had a slow and painful death in the hospital (WW2 veteran with all the physical issues that go with it, so another can of worms).
Can you do something about suing Nurse practitioners vs physicians for med mal? With NPs working independently with a fraction of the training, it seems like an easy payday for med mal lawyers. Also, going after hospitals that replace physicians with NPs to save on salary costs. Patients have no idea
I imagine this exchange: Medical "expert": That treatment wasn't necessary. Lawyer: My client followed the doctor's orders. Are you accusing the doctor of malpractice? ME: Yes. Judge: Well, then this must be deferred to criminal court. When the criminal court discovers it was not malpractice and the "expert" was making things up, the insurance company has to pay to the client, the fee of the medical "expert", and the civil court fee. But it is a few years later and the insured amount is not adjusted by inflation. The medical expert has to pay damages to the doctor (false accusation), and is imprisoned for perjury.
Ok a lot to unpack here. If the expert said the doctor commitment malpractice, the case would not move to criminal court. Malpractice is not a criminal charge. The doctor who would theoretically be accused of malpractice in this example, is not a party. There is nothing to go to criminal court about. A civil court doesn’t defer or transfer to criminal court. That’s the gist.
Are you saying two professionals cant have a differing opinion without one of them breaking the law? So if you lost even one case are you guilty of purgry?
Most of the doctors we go to after an accident refer people to their own attorneys ,,, so insurance have their doctors and doctors got their attorneys simple as that it’s all about making money
Doctor 1: I'll prescribe acetaminophen and ibuprofen Doctor 2: I'll prescribe acetaminophen and ketoprofen End Result: Both treatments work! It depends on their view and experience with medications Insurance Company: "That's not how you treat a bruise according to Mayo Clinic Online".
What he seems to avoid mentioning is that there is something that lawyers engage in called "attorney driven care" and lien based medical treatment that is highly questionable.
doctors are the one field where a professional can give you advice but they’re not liable if you follow it because it’s your choice. Yet in insurance and law you need to tip toe around your words because if they misunderstand you and do something the courts will argue that you advised them. I think it’s corrupt and needs to be fixed doctors need to be held accountable if they advise someone to do something. It is not the same as presenting facts and giving someone a choice
That’s there to protect doctors. If a doctor commits to the record they believe someone else committed malpractice, that’s at best an opinion. In addition, it will be used in all future cases of a similar variety because of legal precedence. The patients doctor best knows the patient. Other doctors may only say what they would do. Come on my guy you went to law school
Ahhh, but what about when an insurance company has a hired-gun "doctor" who, just because the insurer doesn't feel like paying, denies treatment/tests that would have prevented loss? Looking at YOU, United Health Care...
You can say youre not blaming the client for it but that doesn't make it the defendants responsibility to pay for it just because the others persons doctor said to do it.
I would never, ever vote in favor of an insurance company if I somehow ended up on a jury. I wouldn’t tell anyone that so I wouldn’t get kicked off the jury by the lawyers, but I would absolutely never vote their way even if it was clearly a scam case and the company was on the right. Fuck ‘em.
😂😂❤ I have a video of my chiropractor after 90 days of "treatment" telling me "i normally dont treat these kinds of injury and from this point on; we shouldnt continue treatment" 😂 4k video 😂
How eager would you be to testify against another lawyer in a malpractice case? How about when you can just testify about standard of care and leave the breach argument to the plaintiff's counsel? I wouldn't call that "propaganda."
Did the doctor suggest the treatment? yes. Was suggesting that treatment malpractice? no. Are you telling me, that the treatment, that the doctor suggestet, was unnecessery, but it was still correct for the doctor to suggest the treatment? Well...
Do you think that there should be a greater number of people that should be learning about laws? Like, is there some kind of course a person could take that would give them a fighting chance for the rest of their life. Maybe not the point of a MBE. Kinda like learning how to handle power tools before taking on your first project, so you do not hurt yourself.
u could probably check out law school prep courses or something! check out zero-l ($200) or jd advising (free). not sure if thats what ur looking for tho!
Am I missing something? The argument from the insurance company is essentially we are not responsible. That leaves two other options you or the hospital. They seem to be arguing that you sued the wrong entity?
Sort of. The insurance company is trying to get out of paying for a treatment that would be covered if it was deemed "necessary." The patient's doctor thought it was necessary. The insurance company's doctor is paid a lot of money to testify that the treatment was unnecessary. But that doctor will also be very careful not to agree that it was malpractice. Removing fault from either doctor and placing sole responsibility on the patient for following their doctor's recommendation. That way, the patient has to pay for the treatment instead of insurance.
Classic misdirect for what was stated in the video. You must be a lawyer for some scummy insurance company. So why isn't it malpractice for a doctor to recommend treatment for an accident that's unrelated to the accident?
@@valenciafantv "likely" is a very fun word to play around with, isn't it? It's super convenient to rely on the misdirection that a non-zero chance means anything could have happened, right? What an actual scumbag.
I suspect I know exactly what kind of lawsuits you are referring to and I hate that I know that. Insurance companies are evil and should not exist in a private manner.
I don't find that to be a thin line at all. In fact, I think the line between "overly precautionary" and "malpractice" is a giant chasm. All of society wants doctors who practice conservatively. That's going to mean recommending treatment that is overly precautionary a large chunk of the time and not hitting them with malpractice accusations. Acting like all unnecessary treatment is malpractice is just silly.
Hey everyone, just wanted to share a cautionary tale. I decided to go to India for a cheap cosmetic surgery, but things went horribly wrong. The anesthesia wasn’t done properly, and I actually woke up during the procedure with a tool inside my rectum! It was a nightmare. Just a heads up to thoroughly research and choose a reputable place if you’re considering surgery abroad. Stay safe out there!
Its because both doctors from both sides are bought and paid for so either doctor isnt going to say the other is doing malpractice because for the right coin they would be on the other side.
Insurance companies are the only entities that are allowed to 'practice' medicine without a license.
What about congress and scotus?
Tl:dr your statement don’t make no sense to me, please clarify
What is “‘practice’ without a medical license” supposed to mean here?
If that’s “make a medical judgment on somebody else’s medical situation without being a doctor”, then you’re describing a lot more than just insurance companies. Governing bodies like Congress and the Supreme Court which need to make public health decisions? Yes. Personal injury firms like the one this short’s creator is a part of? Yes. Emergency services like fire departments, EMT’s, and 911 phone operators? Yes. Every boss who has ever decided to give an employee a free sick day because they don’t appear fit for work at that moment? Yes. Every non-doctor person who has to take care of a child, elderly family member, or other invalid? Yes.
Having to ‘practice’ medicine is a natural consequence of the facts that (1) humans get sick/injured, (2) humans care for sick/injured people, and (3) not everybody can - nor should - become a doctor. Assuming you’re not suggesting that no non-doctor should *ever* ‘practice’ medicine without first going through medical school, residency, and all that; what *are* you trying to suggest?
@@nicholaszikos3851 touche
Eh politicians try a good amount too
@@4364742thats why medical insurance is inherently flawed. Even more so given the high turnaround time for cases and the urgency for immediate treatment after incidents. All the examples you provided is not the same as insurance. Governing bodies make general laws, not medical practice on any individuals. Non-doctors can have their judgements, but ultimately do not hold any power over the doctors. Insurance companies, given the otherwise unreasonably high medical bills, are the only entity that can deny a doctor's recommendations, because the patient often time does not have another way of paying.
Medical coverages should not be making money or a business because even given an ambiguous case where the necessity of a treatment is uncertain, we should still lean towards losing money and possibly saving a person's life, rather than thinking from a business perspective. Public healthcare is the way to go.
“Not with my firm”
🫡
@@MikeRafiLawyerI use android, what emoji is that?
Salute
@@MikeRafiLawyerwhy did bro come back to say it again? 💀
@@SynixCSo7
“Not with my firm” 😏😏😏
🫡
Thx for replying!!! I love ur channel so much and you make me smile every day 😁
Im not even really interested in doing anything related law, yet this man still gets me to watch his videos with close attention and keeps me interested through all of them
Thanks. More to come!
Mike has excellent delivery, yeah.
That's why he does trials. He knows how to relay information accurately & charismatically. I practice in his jurisdiction (Georgia), he knows his shit. Or at least, calls out insurance's bullshit that ive also dealt with for years. Ive been screaming it to the clouds for years, and its not just health insurance, it's the whole industry. I'd hire him for a civil case if I was a Plaintiff. Even if he doesn't know the specific area of law, I'll do the research, and tell him you just deliver it. 😆
Same. He gets me hyped up about legal issues I’ve never even heard or thought of. It almost makes me wish I had a legal issue where I needed his representation. 😂
The scam insurance companies go hard 🔥
Sometimes doctors are wrong
@@jai-kk5uuThen why doesn’t the defense argue malpractice?
Scam insurance? Why did you say the same word twice?
@@chillmemes5865 not their job. All they have to prove is that the treatment or test was unnecessary. Whether the doctor was upchraging, incompetent or something else is not their issue
@@jai-kk5uu bros speaking straight nothing 📣📣📣 keep licking those boots man
Just watched a video by StyroPyro how he has an unknown illness and needed to get a scan if some sort. Not only did his insurance that he oays $10,000 a year for DENY him getting the scan, but after he fought it and eventually got the scan, he had to pay TWICE as much for the scan with insurance than it would have cost without it.
I thank you and lawyers like you for fighting these horrendous, predatory companies.
Just pay the cash price…it’s your right.
@michaelscott33 then he should also have the right to not pay for insurance. Do you believe that he has that right under the ACA which charges him?
@@michaelscott33 I tried that once and was told I couldn't if I had insurance...
In 2002 a doctor told me to my face that I was "just a 15 year old girl who is making up pain for attention" and refused to keep seeing me. I'm permanently disabled now and really pissed my parents didn't sue
Did statute of limitations run out?
Generally you have at least 1-2 years to file a lawsuit after you turn 18.
I had a pediatrician who was convinced I had ocular migraines and was that at age 10 I was just "being dramatic" when I was having seizures despite having seizures as an infant.. took a long time to finally get a neurology referral and seizure medication, I went into remission shortly after starting meds so I probably had several seizures I wouldn't have if he wasn't an idiot
Doctor testifying angainst other doctor about malpractice is as rare as having mafia member testifiing in court.
It is legitimately criminal that some insurance companies will do just about everything they possibly can to avoid doing the one single thing we pay them to do.
Doctors will tend to protect other doctors, but the general idea of medical necessity denials baffles me.
He’s a licensed physician is he not? They’re my primary care, they know my medical record, or they’re employed by a hospital, under mountains of standard operating procedures and oversight.
Why is a doctor who doesn’t know me, has never seen me, hasn’t practiced in years determining if my procedure is medically necessary.
It's not that simple, surgeons know that there is inherent uncertainty of whether surgery will actually be necessary and often only by performing the surgery will show that.
Like if a patient starts having seizures a few years after road traffic collision where they may have been concussed. Will a particular type of brain surgery actually prevent the seizures?
If after the surgery the seizures not only continue but also get worse, then the surgery was unnecessary. The theorized cause of the seizures was disproven by the surgery failing to work as intended.
Surgeons tell patients "this may not work, do you really want to try this treatment? Even if might do nothing?"
"I'll go for it doc, even if there's a slim chance it's my only chance"
But when the surgery doesn't have the intended effect then the surgery was unnecessary. They can say that only based on the results of the surgery despite the surgical affects being successful.
The nature of necessity is difficult as you can't so easily gauge the value of taking a chance on a treatment which is uncertain because it's hard to tell what causes the symptoms.
@@TreblaineCana surgeon use a waiver to counter a suit in that “slim chance” case?
@@Treblaine that’s the issue though, if you have a CT because you’re suspecting a stroke but it turns out to be just a headache. IMO your insurance should still be forced to cover it.
You’re a licensed medical professional. You should have the authority of what’s good for the patient. The non practicing ortho doc hired by the insurance shouldn’t have a say of what’s medically necessary, he’s not the one in the trauma room.
If the insurance is suspecting fraudulent practices than they should be going after the doctor or the facility after the fact. They shouldn’t just get to say no and put it on the facility or patient to cover the expense. Same thing with networks, your insurance should work any instance it’s a licensed professional. Not just when they worked on a special contract discount.
@@AnthonyDukesConsulting you can't just sign away responsibility.
A waiver is not a "get out of lawsuit free card", a waiver is establishing that you did in fact do what you're legally responsible to do, and generally that legal responsibility is "informed consent".
Did you actually properly inform the patient or not? If you did and they consented to it, that is the only waiver that matters. One without the other is worthless.
The distinction is a court in a lawsuit makes a decision based on facts learned as a result of surgery.
But a decision to go ahead with surgery is made BEFORE the outcome of the surgery is known for certain.
So it's possible a surgeon made the right decision with the information the surgeon had at the time.
@@Mr.Buckshots A CT scan is not treatment, it is a test. It is a necessary part of the differential diagnosis. Some test may be unnecessary because no matter what the result it won't change the treatment, like a cracked rib.
In which case you should tell the hospital you're not paying for a test that their doctor said you should get that was worthless. Just tell them to void the bill for that test or have it settled in court.
Your insurance for your health may cover elective speculative surgery, because you may think it's worth taking a risk to remove a mole that has a 10% chance of being malignant. It depends on your specific coverage.
But when you're suing someone else you're held to the legal standard of causality, you are arguing in court, "the defendant's actions did cause X condition which made Y treatment a necessity".
Certainly there are a lot of worthless treatments out there, especially where they're only implying a benefit but are careful to avoid ever actually saying it will cure or mitigate a specific medical ailment.
Like they say "you'll feel better" well I'll feel better after watching a movie but it didn't cure specific back pain.
Chiropracty is not fraud or malpractice, it's like getting a massage or spa treatment, they're careful not to make specific medical claims but just says it is what it is, and give it a go "if you think it helps, it's up to you".
"You should have the authority of what’s good for the patient"
No, a doctor has the authority to advise and administer what's good for the patient, but what is good is a balance of probabilities that the patient has the final call on or if the patient is incapacitated then whoever has delegated legal authority in a shared or total capacity.
" non practicing ortho doc hired by the insurance shouldn’t have a say of what’s medically necessary, he’s not the one in the trauma room."
He may have a better perspective on what's necessary because he is not in one single trauma room but is looking at treatments all over the world and seeing the outcomes of both those who were treated and untreated.
Remember, if the hospital gave YOU an unnecessary treatment then the entity you should sue is the hospital!
They can't say it is malpractice because that is telling a jury in another trial what their verdict should be when it's not the job of an expert witness to tell a jury what their verdict should be.
It may very well be that it definitely was unnecessary yet not malpractice. Because they were careful to say it wasn't a treatment for the condition or they had good reason to think it would treat the condition but were mistaken through no culpable fault of their own.
"If the insurance is suspecting fraudulent practice"
It's not fraud.
Fraud is when you KNOW it doesn't work or you should know it doesn't work.
It's hard to account for things like the placebo effect and regression to the mean.
People are going to heal after an injury, they may heal without surgery. You have things like Good Samaritan laws where you're protected from liability if you acted in good faith to help someone even if it doesn't help or even hurts them in some non-extreme way.
Then they should insure their client and go after the doctor who did the allegedly unnecessary procedure for their money back. This shouldn't be a difficult solve at all
They know it's way easier to just not pay than to pay and then try and claw back some of that payment. It's why their default is to not pay and hope the plaintiff settles for far less than what they're owed.
… the point is that the treatment is legitimate. The patient / client followed the doctor’s orders and usually got better.
The whole it was “over treatment and unnecessary” is nonsense.
I wouldn’t sue by client’s treating doctor for my client, because the treating doc didn’t do anything wrong.
Exactly. He’s saying that if the hired gun for the insurance company is taking the stance that the treatment was “unnecessary” then it would technically qualify as malpractice in many cases, but yet the insurance company stops just short of making that accusation. They want to “justify” why they won’t pay, but won’t accuse the treating physician of malpractice because they know it’s not true.
Amen
This is the problem, insurance companies want you to go to the doctor as little as possible to save money but lawyers want you to go as MUCH as possible, even if it’s not actually necessary so that it improves their case and they can make more money. Doctors are caught in the crossfire because if they deny treatment even if it’s not necessary they could be opening themselves up to litigation. Doctor often just do the treatments to cover themselves.
“That’s what we try to (error) to doctors”
Dude this man is insane
No doubt
@@MikeRafiLawyer by far the best TH-cam talker person
Thanks
Here's an example of an "unnecessary surgery": rather than take a small sample of a mole and wait to see if it's dangerous they give the option for surgery to remove the mole and THEN do a very thorough biopsy of what's removed.
But the biopsy reveals the mole is entirely benign and didn't need to be removed.
The patient was informed that the surgery was LIKELY unnecessary but only by performing the surgery was it found that it wasn't necessary.
This can happen for personal injury, the doctor can accurately say "It may be that this surgery won't benefit you at all because your diagnosis is unclear"
"yes, I know the risks, but I'm willing to risk surgery that may be worthless"
That is informed consent. That is not malpractice.
That's not how the term is normally used. Usually it's used to mean making up or grossly exaggerating a risk to make a patient think they need surgery they don't need. When I was on vacation, I had afib and was told by a cardiologist I needed a pacemaker. He wanted to put one in right then and tried to convince me not to leave without it. When I got home and saw my own cardiologist, he said it would have been ridiculous to get a pacemaker for someone in his 50s who has only had afib four times in eight years, and 3 of the 4 times it went away on its own without a cardioversion. A lot of surgeons are psychopaths, it's in the top ten careers for them (See Oxford psychologist Kevin Dutton's "The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success" for the data on that) and it's much easier for a psychopath to abandon morality to make a little extra money, even if it means risking someone's life. That is not informed consent, it is malpractice.
@@paulh2981 It's also just a differing assessment of risk.
The hard reality is that doctors advise on risk but the informed consent is more than just a rubber-stamp it is your vital part of the decision making.
The surgery likely won't do nothing but will it do enough to be worth the risk? I don't think it is a clear cut matter of any treatment having a guaranteed effect with a guaranteed bad alternative without treatment.
Everyone is looking to doctors for orders when all they can really do is advise.
The client should have gotten a second opinion 😉
Except then you're not covered with that second doctor since it was an unnecessary consultation. He's made a video about that one too.
@@magicturtleult1481 I know, the winky face was for the people like you who watch other Rafi videos.
@@magicturtleult1481yeah i think he was referring to that video
Well I think this also sheds light on the fact that not every case has a perpetrator, like legally we like to think that someone is always liable for the damages, but in reality, there are often circumstances where no one can truly be put at fault, and I’m not talking about acts of god, I’m talking about one person doing one thing that they would have no reason to believe would lead to any damages, and another person doing another thing that they would think to be harmless, but little did either of them know, those 2 things together created a problem. Neither person would reasonably expect that such actions would result the way they did because they circumstances were unusual and unique.
Honestly, I love these shorts, a nice look into a very niche, but a very important part of the US law system
This short really shows to me the difference between law firms. If you understand the strategies of your opposition, then you can plan around it.
I imagine there are some law firms that may not have this level of knowledge about insurance lawyer, or even if they do, maybe don’t really have a plan of attack. Your point in conveying this contradiction to the jury seems like a big deal. You COULD simply argue the facts, but that’s not going to resonate with the jury. This video made me realize the art in understand people and knowing how something sounds to them when they hear it. I absolutely believe you when you say this stuff doesn’t work against your firm. The insight you have and the thought you’ve put into your strategies really shows.
I work in medical billing for workers compensation and I was excused from jury duty because I told them I had a bias against physicians advisors who they said would be testifying in the case.
When they asked me why I said "i think every physician advisor has purchased their one way guaranteed ticket to hell for a quick buck" and I stand by that.
This short was 👍
I read the story of a doctor who worked for an insurance company to validate that such and so procedure was actually necessary. One case came across her desk of a disabled person who needed a device in order to communicate. She had to fight the insurance company to get it approved. After that case, she quit working for insurance companies. Insurance companies do not care about their customers' health and well-being. They just care about money and finding ways not to pay out claims.
I want to know how consistent malpractice (multiple botched surgeries leaving forceps or blood cloth inside the client) that is supposed to award 9 figures, but they are using NDA to keep them quiet while the Dr. still gets to keep their license. The verdict was years ago, still haven't paid a cent and there are still foreign objects inside the client. Care is no longer decided by doctors, it's overseen by lawyers.
is it me or what this guy sort of looks and sounds like daredevil if he wore a red tie and some red glasses boom perfect daredevil real life. lol
Because they are sayinf it was elective. The dr didnt commit malpractice they just did a procedure for them that wasnt mandatory they elected to do it
I don't know if I've learned much about law or lawyering from these shorts, but I *have* learned that if an insurance company says "no" I should definitely push harder.
Wish my lawyers pushed this harder in my case 😢
The most sensible explanation is because the insurance company's expert (also an accredited doctor) is hired to speak to whether treatment was medically necessary by reviewing the medical records and, often, examine the Plaintiff. That's it. For the expert to go as far as to whether another doctor committed malpractice would be overstepping, unless the excessive treatment is especially egregious.
Say Plaintiff gets injured in a car accident and their doctor has the Plaintiff do physical therapy for 4 weeks, 3 times a week. Plaintiff feels a little better after those 12 visits, but the doctor thinks the Plaintiff's condition can still improve. The doctor orders more physical therapy, and after another 12 visits, the Plaintiff feels roughly the same after the 2nd trial of 12 visits. 24 physical therapy visits later, the Plaintiff's doctor should be consider whether the Plaintiff is at maximum medical improvement, but instead he orders 30 more visits. These visits yield no additional benefits for the Plaintiff, but cost an assload of money.
The insurance company's expert is going to identify that the physical therapy treatment should have stopped after 24 visits. Not all doctors are fleecing their patients like this, but it certainly goes on with an alarming amount of frequency. Whether an insurance company's expert is going to call it malpractice, though, is up to the individual expert. Most are not going to make that call unless it is clear and obvious.
Holy shit mike from suits became a real lawyer.
Note for context: In many cases, the doctor was chosen by the personal injury lawyer, not the client. Many personal injury lawyers send their clients to their favorite doctors, who they know will run up the fees. Often, the doctors have a stake in the outcome of the personal injury case - either because the lawyer pays them directly, or because the doctor has agreed to defer payment until the end of the patient’s lawsuit.
I was a jour once in a case that involved a medial testimony. We all suspected that the treatment done was a friend referred by a friend. We still gave them the money. But not as much
“Not with my firm 🥰”
As opposed to the scam where a plaintiff’s lawyer takes 40% of the injured person’s recovery…and calls it a “reasonable fee”
Their argument is: nobody did anything wrong but we're not going to pay anyway. And that argument can ne dismantled into: if nobody else is wrong, you're wrong for not paying.
It really sucks that these trained medical professionals that we are forced to rely on can screw up and not get in trouble, even if they ruined someone's life
My insurance company had spies inside those doctors offices and insurance companies.
They knew that all the people in the car I rear-ended in a Swoop and Stop, were in a gang of crooks who were making money off accidents. They had all been in other accidents just months before. There had been no damage to their car. No photos had been taken, no police report made even though a cop had been there. 364 days later I was sued. They had photos of their car with a massive round dent in the trunk, like it had been backed into a metal pole. The car was reported stolen after and could not be seen.
I won the case.
There's carelessness & than theres negligence. There's speeding & than there is driving to endanger.
Different doctors can come to different conclusions about what a patient needs without being in violation of the standard of care. Doctors can make bad decisions without breaching the standard of care.
Anyone who trusts the word of a doctor because they're a doctor deserves to be parted from their money.
Surely you can't apply knowledge in hindsight in court?
Ex: If a client was in a car crash and came in with severe leg pain so the doctor orders an X-ray which doesn't reveal any fractures or breaks.
The x-ray in hindsight wasn't NEEDED but it's completion allowed diagnoses to be ruled out.
So, no treating physician ever over-treated a patient to make money?
No one said that. The point he's making is that the insurance companies never blame the doctor, whether it's needed treatment or not. They always go for the client who is just following the recommendations of the doctor, you know, the guy with a medical License and knows their medical history.
Also, you often don't know it is overtreatment until after you've given the treatment and the treatment doesn't work.
There's far more liability in malpractice for undertreatment than overtreatment.
When doctors explain the risk to patients "so do you want to risk doing nothing or risk doing something" a lot worry about doing nothing.
@@suoh6431 I'm doubtful any medical doctor engaged as an expert by any insurance carrier has "blamed the patient" for following their treating doctor's prescriptions. I would love to see the transcripts where that has actually occurred. Further, the assertion that the patient was given excessive or unnecessary treatment is not the same as alleging malpractice. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. It requires an assessment against standards of care. However, the patient would have to sue the treating physician for medical malpractice, which is an entirely separate legal pursuit. For a doctor to get on the witness stand in a personal injury suit and claim that the treating physician committed malpractice could lead to separate litigation against the doctor making the allegation.
"I like pancakes"
"OH, SO YOU HATE WAFFLES HMMM"
Malpractice covers only harm done to the patient by doctors. Overtesting and running unnecessary tests isn't harmful, and some nervous patients may request those. That is something that shouldn't be covered by insurance. If they were, everyone's premiums go up.
In fairness, it can be clear in hindsight a treatment wasn't necessary, when at the time the evidence pointed towards needing the treatment and the doctor was following his training.
My husband's hand surgeon wrote on his report that my husband's hand was 100% recovered... In reality, he has weakness and pain. 🤬
The insurance in my case, sent me yo a specialist who borrowed an office. It was not clean and had no certificates hanging. He asked for things I Was not asked to provide. He was a joke. When the physio therapist found that insurance would pay, the condition might require several years. I am competent at sports injury massage.
Remember boys and girls, if you're ever called for jury duty, always side with the little guy against large corporations 100% of the time. It's your moral obligation. Fuck the facts.
Malpractice is a hard line to prove.
How many times do people go to the doctor and have elective procedures that the doctor says they didn't need?
All the time!!
Once a doctor tried to give my grandpa a heart procedure that, when you knew his medical history, was not only useless but also harmful. The doctor tried to make him sign on a corner in a "we need you signature" kinda way. My grandpa called my grandma to get her opinion, who in turn called my mom who studied medicine for 6 years before dropping out : she knows her stuff. The doctor tried the "your father is going to die" to which I'd say, the man was like 83, of course he was going to die at some point: either by his brain that was somehow working perfectly despite having glaring issues, his heart that was malformed or maybe his type 2 diabetes...Also, said he had the okay from the cardiologist but when called, he had no idea what that was about and said it was a stupid idea and to not get the procedure.
This son of a B clearly saw an old man he could get surgery experience on... My grandparents' neighbour ended up getting said surgery (same hospital so probably same doctor) and had a slow and painful death in the hospital (WW2 veteran with all the physical issues that go with it, so another can of worms).
Can you give an example?
Of course they don't want to imply malpractice!
Then they just have to pay out for the malpractice insurance claim taken against the doctor...
Not with my firm 🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Can you do something about suing Nurse practitioners vs physicians for med mal?
With NPs working independently with a fraction of the training, it seems like an easy payday for med mal lawyers.
Also, going after hospitals that replace physicians with NPs to save on salary costs.
Patients have no idea
The doctors who work for these companies often have issues with their license
All of lovecrafts greatest horrors pale in comparison to the us healthcare system and the insurance companies that leech off it
I imagine this exchange:
Medical "expert": That treatment wasn't necessary.
Lawyer: My client followed the doctor's orders. Are you accusing the doctor of malpractice?
ME: Yes.
Judge: Well, then this must be deferred to criminal court.
When the criminal court discovers it was not malpractice and the "expert" was making things up, the insurance company has to pay to the client, the fee of the medical "expert", and the civil court fee.
But it is a few years later and the insured amount is not adjusted by inflation.
The medical expert has to pay damages to the doctor (false accusation), and is imprisoned for perjury.
Ok a lot to unpack here.
If the expert said the doctor commitment malpractice, the case would not move to criminal court.
Malpractice is not a criminal charge.
The doctor who would theoretically be accused of malpractice in this example, is not a party. There is nothing to go to criminal court about. A civil court doesn’t defer or transfer to criminal court.
That’s the gist.
The treatment sometimes is just a wallet biopsy. That's something the insurance company shouldn't pay for.
Are you saying two professionals cant have a differing opinion without one of them breaking the law? So if you lost even one case are you guilty of purgry?
Love your videos btw thus two comments to promote them
Just ask the doctor on the stand if he will testify in the malpractice lawsuite
Most of the doctors we go to after an accident refer people to their own attorneys ,,, so insurance have their doctors and doctors got their attorneys simple as that it’s all about making money
Doctor 1: I'll prescribe acetaminophen and ibuprofen
Doctor 2: I'll prescribe acetaminophen and ketoprofen
End Result: Both treatments work! It depends on their view and experience with medications
Insurance Company: "That's not how you treat a bruise according to Mayo Clinic Online".
What he seems to avoid mentioning is that there is something that lawyers engage in called "attorney driven care" and lien based medical treatment that is highly questionable.
doctors are the one field where a professional can give you advice but they’re not liable if you follow it because it’s your choice. Yet in insurance and law you need to tip toe around your words because if they misunderstand you and do something the courts will argue that you advised them. I think it’s corrupt and needs to be fixed doctors need to be held accountable if they advise someone to do something. It is not the same as presenting facts and giving someone a choice
That’s there to protect doctors. If a doctor commits to the record they believe someone else committed malpractice, that’s at best an opinion. In addition, it will be used in all future cases of a similar variety because of legal precedence. The patients doctor best knows the patient. Other doctors may only say what they would do. Come on my guy you went to law school
Ahhh, but what about when an insurance company has a hired-gun "doctor" who, just because the insurer doesn't feel like paying, denies treatment/tests that would have prevented loss?
Looking at YOU, United Health Care...
Has anyone said he looks suspiciously like Matt Murdock
You can say youre not blaming the client for it but that doesn't make it the defendants responsibility to pay for it just because the others persons doctor said to do it.
So, do you ever cross those doctors asking them how they can make thise judgement without seeing the client?
I would never, ever vote in favor of an insurance company if I somehow ended up on a jury. I wouldn’t tell anyone that so I wouldn’t get kicked off the jury by the lawyers, but I would absolutely never vote their way even if it was clearly a scam case and the company was on the right. Fuck ‘em.
😂😂❤ I have a video of my chiropractor after 90 days of "treatment" telling me "i normally dont treat these kinds of injury and from this point on; we shouldnt continue treatment" 😂 4k video 😂
Can you pin them down by asking if the treatment is inconsistent with the standard of care, and how?
I hate insurance companies.
How eager would you be to testify against another lawyer in a malpractice case? How about when you can just testify about standard of care and leave the breach argument to the plaintiff's counsel? I wouldn't call that "propaganda."
Did you see the video of the police officer pulling over a paramedic in an ambulance for speeding? What do you think of that from a legal standpoint?
I’m recording all things always.
This seems an awful like when suing a cop
"Malpractice" is a *legal* construct, outside the scope of a medical practitioner to judge, is it not?
Did the doctor suggest the treatment? yes.
Was suggesting that treatment malpractice? no.
Are you telling me, that the treatment, that the doctor suggestet, was unnecessery, but it was still correct for the doctor to suggest the treatment? Well...
😂 👍👏
Providing unnecessary treatment is malpractice......
Do you think that there should be a greater number of people that should be learning about laws? Like, is there some kind of course a person could take that would give them a fighting chance for the rest of their life. Maybe not the point of a MBE. Kinda like learning how to handle power tools before taking on your first project, so you do not hurt yourself.
u could probably check out law school prep courses or something! check out zero-l ($200) or jd advising (free). not sure if thats what ur looking for tho!
Am I missing something? The argument from the insurance company is essentially we are not responsible. That leaves two other options you or the hospital.
They seem to be arguing that you sued the wrong entity?
Sort of. The insurance company is trying to get out of paying for a treatment that would be covered if it was deemed "necessary." The patient's doctor thought it was necessary. The insurance company's doctor is paid a lot of money to testify that the treatment was unnecessary. But that doctor will also be very careful not to agree that it was malpractice. Removing fault from either doctor and placing sole responsibility on the patient for following their doctor's recommendation. That way, the patient has to pay for the treatment instead of insurance.
What would be your thoughts on government run insurance rather than private companies?
i give you one better have a better health care
What we’re saying is that the injury wasn’t related to the accident. Not that there’s no injury
I hate you.
Classic misdirect for what was stated in the video. You must be a lawyer for some scummy insurance company. So why isn't it malpractice for a doctor to recommend treatment for an accident that's unrelated to the accident?
@@khrishp there was likely some intervening cause like a fall at home or a second accident
@@valenciafantv "likely" is a very fun word to play around with, isn't it? It's super convenient to rely on the misdirection that a non-zero chance means anything could have happened, right? What an actual scumbag.
My dna has been stolen at a doctors office.
Parthenogenesis
I suspect I know exactly what kind of lawsuits you are referring to and I hate that I know that. Insurance companies are evil and should not exist in a private manner.
Malpractice is a legal term not a medical term ?
I don't find that to be a thin line at all. In fact, I think the line between "overly precautionary" and "malpractice" is a giant chasm. All of society wants doctors who practice conservatively. That's going to mean recommending treatment that is overly precautionary a large chunk of the time and not hitting them with malpractice accusations. Acting like all unnecessary treatment is malpractice is just silly.
Literally capitalism at its finest 👌
Carter DONT do the thug shake (I’m desperate for a pc)
How is that permissible?
It's not bs. Doctors work for insurance companys not you
why don't CDC WMD WHO establish an LLM AI Based bodies to up root these disputes. instead of hired and paid mouth pieces of doctors by INSU companies.
İ still love if "it wasnt necessary, but it wasnt malpractice"
Then what the fuck was it? Did jerry WANT to go cut his arm off???
You cant say anything medical on a social media platform without a degree but get railed for following doctors ORDERS.
Hey everyone, just wanted to share a cautionary tale. I decided to go to India for a cheap cosmetic surgery, but things went horribly wrong. The anesthesia wasn’t done properly, and I actually woke up during the procedure with a tool inside my rectum! It was a nightmare. Just a heads up to thoroughly research and choose a reputable place if you’re considering surgery abroad. Stay safe out there!
Could someone go into more detail about the propaganda that was alluded to?
Its because both doctors from both sides are bought and paid for so either doctor isnt going to say the other is doing malpractice because for the right coin they would be on the other side.
Maybe we should judge lawyers at the same bar you set for doctors when it comes to malpractice.
Your bias is naked here.
But the doctors in Ohio gave my mom a medicine that poisoned and killed her and you are in GA!!!! Help - cause of death: Amiodarone Pulmonary Toxicity