Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
As for your questions, I think that the hosptials are stating that it's impossible in some of these cases to remove the identifying information, because the cases are so unique. I don't see a conflict if the identifying information is removed, but I'd be very wary of exposing myself to a complaint from the patient if I disclosed too much information.
I haven't seen the physicians' response but I think that they're arguing that they can be cross examined, and peer reviewed literature can be brought into evidence. The District Court Judge in Illinois seemed to imply that this evidence is being asked for impeachment purposes, and I would think that impeachment evidence should be given greater scrutiny than direct fact evidence. Given the assertion of medical necessity, it probably would be useful to have a few medical records showing medical necessity. I imagine that the plaintiffs do have and have produced a couple of these records.
|
OK, this makes sense. Although, in the case where the docs are primarily claiming that the procedures they've performed have been due to medical necessity, I think that allowing them to pick a few representative record sets is sort of troublesome.
I just wonder if the outcry would be similar if they were looking at past treatments of toenail fungus. (Oh, and the impeachment argument is kind of thin - testing the challengers' main assertion technically isn't impeachment.)
