Who determines medical tests are “frivolous”?

Is a CT or MRI for a working stiff frivolous?

Today's blog is about a sad case waiting for an answer to the question, what was the cause of death. So before we get into today's blog here is a video clip and song (Letters From The Sky) from the forensic show Bones. You can listen to it while you read. Here are two others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s98UWx8atw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jshborVGrwU

While we await the scientific answers let's ask another basic question about you and yours.

Should you (and yours) be given lesser medical treatment because you're not a VIP?

THE FACTS: A woman is in a car accident and injures her neck and head. She goes to the hospital where she is examined and released. She's 46-years-old. The mva occurs at around 11:00 a.m. on a Saturday. The next morning at 8:00 a.m. a friend notices she is unconscious. She is later pronounced dead.

QUESTION: Is this just bad luck or preventable? Should medical care require an MRI, a CT or would such tests simply be another case of frivolous medicine being practiced due to the threat of a lawsuit? In other words do threats of lawsuits cause the tail to wag the medical dog? Or does the dog's tail need to be wagged? It's your call.

A REAL LIFE BONES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNgx2FLQea4

I'm making no judgments about this case because I don't have any facts to judge anyone involved, but it does present us with an opportunity to talk about the concept of frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary medical tests. This is a forensics' case because the answer to this one is in the autopsy results. Those results could show that head trauma from the accident caused an aneurysm, and if the medical care prescribed any type of medicine that thinned the blood, it could have caused her to bleed-out after being released from medical care and returning home. A CT scan or MRI may have shown the leaking vessels in the brain, a contraindication of prescribing such medicines; and then again maybe not. Like I said the answers lay in the autopsy results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s98UWx8atw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jshborVGrwU

Waterloo woman dies following weekend crash; autopsy scheduled
Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier
The crash happed at the intersection of Highway 63 and the Highway 218 off ramp just north of University Avenue when a Toyota 4 Runner driven by Somvang ...
See all stories on this topic »

"Shields, who was a front-seat passenger in the 4 Runner and was wearing a seat belt, reported head, neck, shoulder and hip pain. Paramedics with Waterloo Fire Rescue took her to Covenant Medical Center, the accident report states.

She talked with a police officer at the emergency room, according to the report

Shields was later released from the hospital, Pillack said.

A friend noticed Shields unconscious shortly before 8 a.m. Sunday. Paramedics were called to her home, and she was later pronounced dead."

You are the judge; just remember that your answer will dictate the care you and your children receive after you are in an auto accident. It probably doesn't matter to the lawyers that practice PI, we will live whichever way you decide and will have a better idea of how to control the medical decisions that apply to our family in the event of a car collision. But remember if the powers that be are in an accident all bets are off and they get the VIP treatment. My guess is the families of doctors, nurses, surgeons, judges and insurance executives probably get the MRI and CT Scans. Most lawyers probably demand these tests. So your answer to this question is really about you and yours: Should you be given lesser medical treatment because you're not a VIP?