dont worry, if i'm ever in the chicago area i'll certainly hit you up for a round of golf
Historically, doctors viw chiropractors as quacks and chiropractors view doctors as some combinations of frauds, drug pushers, and butchers. The truth of the matter is that both sides have important contributions to give. I have spoken with people who had more than one doctor telling them they needed serious, life-altering surgery... who then went to a chiropractor and are all better now, so stitches required. I also have spoken with people who had chiropractors tell thm they could fix anything, that surgery was never, ever, ever, requird for anything (ANYTHING).
That said, um... $40,000? I see a chiropractor from time to time (for myalgia, no less), and it costs me $25 a visit, with NO INSURANCE, and that's for both my neck and my back (I only go once in a while, say, after moving, when it flares up). That would 800 visits for each woman...
Even if he charged $100 a visit, that would be 200 visits per woman. That's insane. My wife was in a wreck, had fairly significant whiplash, and she only needed less than 20 visits to go back to normal life.
Its posts like this that comfort me knowing I will soon be a trial lawyer.
The times I've been called for jury duty I've founf the voire dire [sp?] process even more lacking than what's described here. I've had to interrupt them and say "excuse me, I'm a registered nurse [and you really don't want me on the panel]" in order to get released.
Back when I was VP & Chief Underwriter for a major health insurance company in NYC, I was surprised to find myself selected on a jury for a slip-and-fall liability case.
BTW, there was an exchange at the trial that I have always wondered about. When the case was over, I attempted to catch up to the defense attorney but could not. Maybe someone here can answer?
The plaintiff's chiropractor was on the stand. He had already testified as to his services tot he plaintiff, and to their cost. The defense attorney's first question was: "Doctor, have you been paid?". I thought this was a very relevant question. However there was an IMMEDIATE objection from plaintiff's lawyer, the judge immediately sustained, and the defense lawyer showed no surprise, but went on to the next question. The judge instructed the jury to disregard the question.
So I'd like to know - what was objectionable about that question?
my best guess is that it was proof of insurance issues which is inadmissible...but that is just a best guess
Commenting by HaloScan
