| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-03-19, 6:22 pm |
| A number of patients have asked me why psychologists and optometrists
have had more success testifying in refractive surgery disability
cases. The answer is that disability law allows a broader definition
of "medical professional" to argue a patient's case. Here's a three
year old thread from SE and doctormyeye.com that looks at those
differences.
Why Our Efforts In The Disability Arena WILL Be Successful
DoctorMyEye.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of you may wonder why I have elected to take our battle for
respect and acknowledgement into the arena of disability law. Many of
you may wonder of you should get your hopes up, since many of your past
efforts for recognition have fallen on deaf ears.
I have decided to take a few minutes this evening to give us all a
little pep talk.
First and foremost, I want to tell you upfront that I think that RSPOCS
will be the engine for change that many of you have hoped for. Lets
talk about why my hopes are so high.
Disability law is part of the Federal Register, and hence it is the law
of the land. For past efforts, we have often petitioned the FDA, or
spoken to organized ophthalmology, and asked for reform. As we "bumped
our heads" against their indifference, we had no carrots, we had no big
stick.
It has been like if we keep trying to enter a giant card game, but the
other players keep trying to get us out of the room. The FDA has the
power to change the refractive surgery industry, but the steps that we
must climb to that change are long and boobytrapped with special
interests that will attack our credibility and hide behind their
"science", while arguing our "science" is poor or defective.
For example, in front of an FDA panel, an anti-LASIK advocate might say
"My LASIK caused me to have trigeminal neuralgia, probably because the
damage to my cornea and upper eyelid caused by clamping my lids caused
a feedback loop of pain that causes intense stabbing pain in my face."
The pro-LASIK side will argue that
"This feedback loop has no science, it is not in the literature.
Prove to me that I disabled you. Show me where the nerves are damaged
and how I did it."
But, disability law levels the field. Disability law allows a
psychologist to make an evaluation of your disability. Disability law
allows an optometrist to document your need for time off to go get
treatment. And, if it ends up in court, disability law puts you in
front of a judge. That judge will be an honest man or an honest woman,
and she will listen to you. Really listen. Then, he/she will listen to
your psychologist, your optometrist, your brother-in-law. Your
opportunity to be "playing on a level playing field" will light up your
face like a thousand sunrises. And then, the judge will turn to the
other side, and ask "Show me why your surgery did NOT cause this
disability." "If it is not in the medical textbooks, why not?"
So, it comes down to this...the law of the land supercedes the "laws"
of the medical community. Disability laws are based on the most sacred
tenents like "Do no harm". Every morning, your LASIK surgeon comes to
work and obeys the laws of the land. He pays wages to his staff, he
pays his taxes, he renews his federal licenses. He lives inside the
huge boundaries of laws that are in the Federal Register. The law of
the land.
The law of the land allows that if a person has a chronic condition
(like RSPOCS), and he needs to have regular periodic examinations and
treatments for that condition, his job security is protected under the
law.
More specifically, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 says that
if your company has 50 or more workers within a 75 mile radius, and you
have worked for him for at least one year, and that year you worked at
least 1250 hours...your job is protected under the FMLA of 1993.
And to make life easier, the act spells out what medical professional
can determine you need to have that continuing care. Taken directly
from the Federal Register, (CFR825.118) the act defines a "health care
provider" as doctors of medicine, and, under (2)(b) (1) of the
act..."podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, OPTOMETRISTS, and
chiropractors".....performing within the scope of their practice under
State law."
Federal law does not require that your surgeon who cut you admit that
you are disabled. Federal law allows you to take your story to a
psychologist, an optometrist, and tell your story to someone who has no
interest in LASIK. Tell your story to someone who doesn't care if the
laser companies all go bankrupt. They won't care if the future supply
of patients suddenly dwindles.
They will look you in the eye and say: "Tell me about your disability,
and how did it happen?"
When that day happens, there will be another epiphany, because you will
realize that you had fought so hard for validation that your pain is
real, that your disability is real....and you will realize that the
validation that you needed was always there. It was there inside your
soul.
And that, my dear colleagues, is why we are here...
Quote:
Quoting Dr. Minarik
When your surgeon looks you in the eye....
and says "Let's not forget that this was a voluntary surgery, and you
consented to do this after reading the forms." Take a deep breath, and
remember to respond gracefully "No one signs away their right to not be
disabled. This surgery has taken away my ability to see well, to think
well, and perform my job well. I never signed those things away to
anyone."
Quote:
Quoting Dr. Minarik
Look away from your surgeon....
I'm sure it was your faith in human nature that let you think that your
surgeon would certify your disability. But, to ask for an evaluation of
your bad surgical result from your surgeon is like asking a painter to
evaluate his own art. There is too much ego involved to ever get a
straight answer, even from the best surgeon.
I even tell patients that after cataract surgery they should have their
glasses prescribed by a good optometrist and not the cataract surgeon.
He sees your eyes after the surgery as the way he "wanted and hoped"
you had come out, not the cold reality of exactly how you did come out.
|