Reply to The Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins verdict is a legal travest

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "The Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins verdict is a legal travest"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I just watched the documentary.  What a hearbreaking story.   Yes, I understand CPS having to investigate.  But two doctors who had treated Maya collaborated the mother's story of the diagnosis and recommended treatment.  But Johns Hopkins didn't agree. During the investigation, the Kowalski's lawyers discovered that the doctors at Johns Hopkins did treat Maya with the same medicine her original doctor had prescribed - so they must have agreed with the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and knew that the course of treatment worked.  I normally don't agree with suing, but in this case it was 100% warranted.[/quote]

More than that, the hospital actually billed her insurance under the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. There was never any alternative diagnosis other than Munchausen by proxy which obviously got ruled out pretty quick as she was still sick despite total separation from the family. The professional conduct of the medical doctors involved was sick as f&ck too. They celebrated the suicide of her Mother. [/quote]
The is pretty commonplace. They billed under the working diagnosis. The hospital is going to bill the patient’s insurance no matter what, with or without an official diagnosis.

Often times a patient begins treatment under one working diagnosis, but then a lab result comes in that forces a change in the diagnosis - the hospital still gets paid for what it did under the working diagnosis.

In this case, JH billed under the working diagnosis. Even while exploring other options. I feel like this is common practice.
[/quote]

Since they failed to diagnose any other issue, that implies they shouldn't have been paid and pay the family for damages, which the court is now telling them to do. [/quote]

Her treatment was experimental.  And extreme.  [/quote]

So? It worked. JHU failed to come up with anything else. So it pays the price. [/quote]

Did it work?  She improved over time, which is not uncommon for her diagnosis and for many diagnoses.  Maybe the treatment was just painful without helping?[/quote]

DP.

Then why did JHU continue the treatment? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics