QuestionQUESTION: On my way home from work sitting at a stop light a 17 year old male hit me while standing still and he was arrested. i went to the hospital for knee and shoulder injuries, then to a surgeon , I went to therapy and was a little better . The doctor waited for 1 year before making a final disability rating and said because i was ready to retire and would not be doing heavy lifting he would not operate and said I had a mild frozen shoulder and said if I could live with it to do so. he gave me a 30% rating I went for and mri of my knee but when they tried the mri for my shoulder i went into a severe panic. The Insurance company only wanted to offer me 10.000 dollars this only covered my doctor bills and lawyer. i refused the offer and went to another doctor that said I had the same thing but again I also could not take the Mri.Can the Insurance company win this clean cut case against me simply because I can't take and Mri. I di have regular x- rays the shoeda a slight seperation but the Insurance company is saying without an Mri how can he make such a definitive rating.
ANSWER: I am sorry for the delay in responding to your question. That is a very unusual circumstance. Frankly, I am not sure I can give you a valuable answer.
1. The doctor is a problem. If he could not make a disability determination, then it creates many questions. Whether or not you are of retirement age has nothing to do with the level of disability you have due to an injury.
2. If you are having panic attacks at the thought of an MRI, then this needs to be validated. Have you been diagnosed with having any type of official phobia?
3. I think the offer is low, but without an MRI your case is weak.
Unfortunately, I believe you will have to do one of two things. . . 1) Overcome your fear of the MRI and get it done or 2) Focus the value of your case on the actual severity of your injury and the future loss of income and enjoyment of life that you will have to endure and press your case on those issues. Without an MRI, the full extent of the physical damage cannot be accurately assessed, and although I understand the problem, I would have to say that having a panic attack is in general a weak excuse for not having an MRI, but if you were to produce documents that substantiate your emotional deficiency in that aspect, my opinion would definitely change.
I hope this helps.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: I think I confused you , the first doctor did give me a 30% disability rating without the MRI based on his examination and x-ray he took and how I was 1 year after the accident so I do have a good rating and the second doctor just confirmed the second doctor but did not give me a rating, I just wanted a second opinion, The problem is that the insurance company is saying how can the first doctor give me a 30% disability rating with no MRI . Doctors had to make a diagnosis when there were no MRI around. I just wanted to know what you think would happen if it went to trail. Also yes it ws documented that I could not take the MRI did try to go in the MRI machine. Thank You So Much
AnswerIndeed I was confused.
You are correct in your assumption about the Dr. For many years doctors did not have the benefit of an MRI and would have had to do exploratory surgery to be sure. In order to argue with a doctor, you have to be a doctor. If they want to argue with a doctor at trial, they will have to find a doctor willing to testify to the contrary about your condition. The rules of disclosure would keep them from hiding their "expert".
I am sorry I misunderstood your question.
