But What if It Isn’t Lemons a Particular Institution Has Given You?
What do you make with that? Some kind of sandwich?
But What if It Isn’t Lemons a Particular Institution Has Given You? What Do You Make out of That? Some Kind of Sandwich?
________
Waiting now at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab downtown because I locked my key in the van.
Problem was, after locking up, I realized that instead of the CD with my medical records for the doctor, I had grabbed the Putumayo American Blues CD, though that was sort of fitting. I unlocked the van and opened the sliding door to find the right CD, then various carrying straps of different things got hung up. I must have set down my phone, American Blues, and the key on the seat and, in a hurry to get to the 15th floor on time, must not have realized the key was still on the seat. At least I still had my phone to call AAA.
I wondered if AAA gets a lot of calls to this place, given all the brain injuries (most a lot worse than mine) being treated here.
So, AAA quickly got it open using the inflatable pad and bendable rod to pull the door handle.
Now I’m just waiting to hear when the test will be scheduled to be repeated, the one the boss of an earlier provider at my university hospital worked hard to block at least twice on that provider’s behalf after her absurd diagnosis (and, no, it wasn’t for that reason, more like a commensal exercise in CYA by a circle of jerks).
___________
Here’s how I summed it up elsewhere:
So who knows what about who, what, when, and where?
1. Aetna knows a significant portion of this that involves that provider and her boss, the department chairman, through my formal complaint that Aetna helped me to file.
2. The hospital’s legal department knows much of it both from my neurophysiologist’s letter on my behalf about the department chairman’s actions that indicated he acted against me in a conflict of interest and from my letter to the hospital’s PatientInsights/Department of Risk Assessment.
3. The attorneys at the law group (one member of the Circle of Jerks trying to hide many acts of both misfeasance and malfeasance) know the history of those two providers because I described it to them every step of the way in what amounts to contemporaneous record-keeping through email correspondence as well as providing them a copy of the history I sent to hospital’s PatientInsights/Office of Risk Assessment.
4. Both my law group and hospital are aware that the other one knows about each other’s mutually beneficial conflicts of interest in the matter.
5. The hospital knows the history of what the law group has done and has failed to do because I have described it to my doctors through MyChart as well as in my description of the actions both of the law group and the medical provider, her boss, and the university’s health care program that I sent to the hospital’s PatientInsights/Office of Risk Assessment that asked me what actions I proposed as a solution. My boss said I should tell them, “Enough to ensure a comfortable retirement.”
The Office of Risk Assessment told me, though, that I should have worked out something with the provider and her boss directly and, since I had not, they considered the matter closed.
And I discovered, when talking to a senior partner at Corboy & Demetrio about a case against that provider and her department chairman boss, that Corboy & Demetrio could not take the case because they were already representing those two providers on at least two other cases involving sports injuries.
From the general nature of what I've already seen, the actions were on behalf of student athletes with university health care program insurance because the provider and the department chairman, in concert with the university’s health care program, were describing the effect of those injuries as having arisen from causes prior to their being students at the university so the limited university health care funding (because it's a self-funded university program but managed by Aetna) wouldn't take a hit.
So, on the one hand, I don't know why the provider and her boss would do what they did multiple times with me unless those suits were already ongoing and they were trying to avoid another one; if so, what they did to me was really a weird way of attempting that, though, up to the present, it appears to have worked.
On the other hand, if those suits had not yet been initiated at the time of
1. The weird diagnosis of my provider (a PhD, not an MD) of injuries I suffered by being rear-ended by a car going about 40-45 mph faster than we were ('I think you've probably always been a little ADHD your whole life,' here take some Ritalin and talk to a counselor about it) that directly contradicted the diagnosis of my neurophysiologist from a different department in the same hospital, a primary care doctor two days after the collision, two doctors the attorneys sent us to, and then my doctor at Shirley Ryan, as well as being unsupported by my entire medical history,
2. Her significant level of intransigence about it, refusing to consider TBI-induced ADHD as a possibility,
3. The unusual efforts of the university’s health care program to prevent me from getting a second opinion at one of the premier hospitals in the US in diagnosing and treating cases like mine and doing so contrary to what Aetna had already approved,
4. The attempt by the PhD’s boss to spike my initial out-of-network referral to the Shirley Ryan Ability Labs which had been set up by Aetna working directly with my neurophysiologist,
5. The granting of a referral (that none of us knew about) about two months after my neurophysiologist wrote his letter to the hospital’s legal department on my behalf complaining about the department chairman’s conflict of interest in rejecting my already approved request for an out-of-network evaluation because, as Aetna said, if no one other than his employee performed those tests at the university hospital, then I had a right to an out-of-network evaluation,
6. The apparent violation by university’s heath care program of their own policy on out-of-network referrals ("by the PCP or other hospital medical provider") by restricting it to my PCP alone on the next attempt for a referral to Shirley Ryan to repeat the tests the results of which the PhD had earlier mischaracterized,
7. The attempt by the provider’s boss to deny the referral to the Shirley Ryan Ability Labs for a repeat of the tests AFTER he had already been singled out to the hospital’s legal department for his first interference, claiming this time that to repeat the testing at Shirley Ryan would be "inappropriate" when it could be done in house using the same people to administer and evaluate it (the PhD and her boss) who messed up the first time,
8. The provider’s later adding something to the medical records equally absurd and radically different to replace what she said to me in our meeting to go over the results, the "always been a little ADHD" which was the subject of my neurophysiologist’s letter to the legal department about her boss’s conflict of interest in blocking my referral to Shirley Ryan, and that PhD doing that after she had already responded to an earlier email from me about the "little bit ADHD diagnosis," saying she was satisfied with her diagnosis and would not comment on what some "other doctor" said,
9. The hospital's Office of Risk Management blowing it all off, saying that I should have worked something out directly with the PhD and her boss, that it was too late now, and that was the end of it,
then I believe that I'm not unreasonable to think either:
A. There was something bad they wanted to cover up that required so much repeated, exigent behavior on their part, or
B. There was an unbelievable number of acts of misfeasance committed by a large number of people who were very closely connected on exactly the same subject, but all doing so entirely by chance and without any sort of coordination.
The situation in B would require astronomical odds to be true, but even if that were discovered to be the case, that does nothing to lessen the damage caused to me by the collective outcome.
A is more like to be the case, given those lawsuits by at least two parties against the PhD and her boss, both connected with the testing and diagnosis of neurological outcomes from physical injuries; sort of just like me.
And then added to that are least ten years of overtime violations, capped off with firing for refusing their inconsistent Covid policies, my objections to which have been thoroughly vindicated over the past three and a half years.
I consider the effort of the past 33 years in post-graduate science to have been almost a complete waste (28 years of it at the same institution), except for fun in classes and the labs and having been able to get the background to understand and to describe what Covid Inc has been up to.
And now the shit storm that is Kamala Harris and Democrat Party gearing up to do to the country what the Democrats did over 164 years ago?
I hope, though, that I will have been able to finish, by voting for Trump three times, what I started by voting twice for Ronald Reagan.