Having problems with message search?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated...
thanks,
amy
Jane had an injury from an MVA required cervical fusion at Valley Health Systems, January 1999. According to Surgeon and treating Physician the fusion healed properly. In June 1999, while treating with her regular physician, the patient had a new complaint of shoulder pain diagnosed as a possible rotator cuff tear. Physical therapy was prescribed by the treating physician for her rotator cuff and the patient chose the Defendant, NE Pain and Rehab, to administer the physical therapy.
At the first two visits to Northeast Pain and Rehab, the patient received treatment for her shoulder and on the third visit alleges she received cervical manipulation which caused her severe pain. During the third visit, treatment records of Northeast Pain and Rehab show a new complaint of neck pain. To address complaint of neck pain, manipulation therapy to her cervical region was added to her plan. On the fourth visit, office notes of Defendant state that, because the patient had sore trapezius, neck and arms, the therapy plan could not be followed. Subsequent visits continue to note the existence of cervical pain. Plaintiff alleges that during the course of six visits, both chiropractic and osteopathic manipulative therapy were done on her cervical region, resulting in chronic pain and injury to the cervical area below the previously fused discs. Due to the lapse of time from the occurrence of the injury, there is, now, no surgical correction for this new injury and Plaintiff’s treating Physician considers the cervical manipulations as violating the standard of care because cervical spine was already in a fragile condition due to the cervical fusion.
Within three weeks of ending her treatment with Defendant, the patient saw her surgeon for a followup surgical checkup. He did not make any notations regarding the physical therapy since it was not relevant to the actual surgery. The treating physician agreed that it is not unusual for the surgeon to omit items not directly related to the surgery. The treating physician, who recommended the physical therapy, does record the cervical manipulations in his file, noting that he did not prescribe cervical therapy and that the un-prescribed manipulations and therapy on the cervical region had caused his patient injury.
Both doctors at the Northeast Pain and Rehab facility denied doing cervical manipulation to the patient. Both doctors billed for cervical manipulation done to this patient. The license of the doctor performing osteopathic manipulation was on probationary status at the time of incident. This doctor denied any suspensions or probations of his license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane chose the site for her therapy from a newspaper ad because it was close to her home. Jane reported neck pain to the practitioner during the course of her visits. Jane returned to the site for more treatment after the first cervical manipulation was done even though she was in pain. Jane did not seek other medical treatment immediately after the supposed incident. Jane saw the surgeon who had performed the fusion within one month of the incident but the incident is not recorded in that doctor's notes. There is no documentation found of the incident until three months later in the treating doctor's note.
Experts for the Defendants assert that the therapy performed on Jane was appropriate and that her current state of health is a result of pre-existing conditions. Jane's treating physician contends that Plaintiff’s injuries are a direct result of medical malpractice, required surgery and interfere with her ability to return to her job, which she was planning to do after recovery from her 1999 surgery.
Offline 
Send Email