|
4th. May 2004
.
Dr P's First
page of her report
Second page of Dr P's Report
Dr P is part time and for some reason does not think she is as fit
to write a Medical Report as a Full Time Medical Adviser ( FTMA). Should
she be employed? This was a straight forward assessment of several medical
documents all dating from 1993. Interestingly, in her response to
the patient's complaint, she congratulated herself on her report 01/0703
and refused to apologise to the patient. ?
Dr G's first Report on scrap paper
dated 29th September 2003
This time not one piece of medical evidence. Bizarrely
he concentrates on NON-MEDICAL evidence : free swimming passes ( because
she was advised on medical grounds to swim within her limits but not to get
breathless and not to go when she felt too tired because she suffered from
' ischaemic heart disease'); the pass to allow her to fly was BECAUSE she
was so ill she required medical permission!
Second attempt by Dr G - this
time on Official Form! dated 16th December 2003
Again the dates are wrong!! The patient is claiming
SDA from October 1st. 1993, and has, very sensibly sent in all medical
test results and consultant letters dating from 1993. Strangely, Dr G thinks
that more recent information should have been sent in - why? If the evidence
shows that the heart was very badly damaged in 1993, then she will be less
well ten years later!! Also, she had all the legal requirements for
SDA in 1993
Again, no listing of medical evidence
as required legally. This is another invalid 'Medical Report'.
Second page of Dr G's report
dated 16th December 2003
At last a piece of medical evidence
appears. He refers very briefly to the ECG taken in March 1993. No mention
of date or source. He notes that the ECG lasted for 'over 6 minutes'
It lasted for 6 mins and 12 seconds precisely. If he combines Dr P's comments
of 'ischaemic changes' , then he should be alarmed, because a 6 minutes stress
ECG, usually taken on Bruce Protocol would have achieved Level 2 Bruce
Protocol. Ischaemic changes at level 2 Bruce Protocol should be cause for
concern, the workload on the heart at this level of exercise is 6 METS
only. ( see Table). However, as we know, the patient was not on Bruce Protocol
but on USAF Regime, and only achieved 3 METS which is less than one Bruce
Protocol! No mention of the irregular rhythms or the
gross abnormalities!! Or the 'marked ischaemic changes' , or the heart attack.
Why not?
Then off he goes again to the NON-MEDICAL
evidence. He appears to have a fixation for free swimming passes and a
pass to allow the patient to fly abroad. These were submitted in October
1998 when first applying for her SDA - and they did not hinder her from
getting the benefit then! None of the new evidence was
mentioned, none of the damning and conclusive clinical test results have
been noted. Why not?
The
Deception of Dr G:
He then refers to the "activities" mentioned by patient
on her IB50 Form completed when she applied for her SDA in December 1998
suggesting that these do not comply with someone unable to work. [ NB:
Remember, she was awarded SDA in July 1998 and was thought to be 80%
disabled at least back to December 1997]. What were these so called
"activities"? The patient has permitted her statements to be
quoted:
"I am unable to stand still for
more than a few minutes because I soon feel faint and become quite distressed
if I am unable to sit down"
" My
symptoms of high heart rate, irregular rhythms, aches in my throat and swollen
ankles come on when I am sitting down. If I walk the symptoms become worse."
" Simply, the more I do - the worse my symptoms become. I do not think I can add anything to what
I have written down in this form and in previous forms. I enclose
a copy of my rest ECG taken on 17th January 1997 showing the heart
attack ( traceable
back to 1993) ischaemia
and problems with the left ventricle. Also a photo of my very swollen ankles,
feet and legs. My total incapacity for work has been substantiated by my
doctor and clinical test results."
Should this doctor be allowed to put other patients at risk
in this way? Should he not be dismissed?
|
