-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
BiPolar Discriminated when seeking LapBand
- Thread starter pcgumshoe
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
seniorjudge
Senior Member
Please, no one axe me why I am wasting my time. But here goes.
Let's review. Your first post said (among other things):
In its pertinent parts, my denial stated, "Our initial review of your medical information and psychological history brought up serious concerns regarding your ability to have a successful surgical outcome. However, the team had wanted to give you the opportunity to work closely with us to determine if your risk factors could be contained well enough to proceed. Unfortunately, interactions between you and our staff have made it so that this close relationship cannot be developed and the multidisciplinary team has determined that you are not a candidate for this procedure at this institution."
This is a nice way of saying you are a pain in the butt (also amply demonstrated by your posts here) and, because of your attitude, they want nothing to do with you because it is unlikely that the procedure would work.
"Under the Rehabilitation Act, a patient may challenge her doctor's decision to refer her elsewhere by showing the decision to be devoid of any reasonable medical support. This is not to say, however, that the Rehabilitation Act prohibits unreasonable medical decisions as such. Rather, the point of considering a medical decision's reasonableness in this context is to determine whether the decision was unreasonable in a way that reveals it to be discriminatory. In other words, a plaintiff's showing of medical unreasonableness must be framed within some larger theory of disability discrimination. For example, a plaintiff may argue that her physician's decision was so unreasonable -- in the sense of being arbitrary and capricious -- as to imply that it was pretext for some discriminatory motive, such as animus, fear, or "apathetic attitudes.” … Or, instead of arguing pretext, a plaintiff may argue that her physician's decision was discriminatory on its face, because it rested on stereotypes of the disabled rather than an individualized inquiry into the patient's condition -- and hence was "unreasonable" in that sense."
And above is one of your quotes from some case you found. It has nothing to do with your situation because you have not given anywhere in this thread any facts (and I emphasize that word) which would show that they demonstrated unreasonable medical attitudes.
No doctor is required to treat you or me or anyone else. If a doctor doesn't like me, he doesn't have to treat me.
Period.
Even if.
End of story.
In recap, there is not one shred of factual evidence showing that you were unlawfully discriminated against.
Well, in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever.
But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that.
Let's review. Your first post said (among other things):
In its pertinent parts, my denial stated, "Our initial review of your medical information and psychological history brought up serious concerns regarding your ability to have a successful surgical outcome. However, the team had wanted to give you the opportunity to work closely with us to determine if your risk factors could be contained well enough to proceed. Unfortunately, interactions between you and our staff have made it so that this close relationship cannot be developed and the multidisciplinary team has determined that you are not a candidate for this procedure at this institution."
This is a nice way of saying you are a pain in the butt (also amply demonstrated by your posts here) and, because of your attitude, they want nothing to do with you because it is unlikely that the procedure would work.
"Under the Rehabilitation Act, a patient may challenge her doctor's decision to refer her elsewhere by showing the decision to be devoid of any reasonable medical support. This is not to say, however, that the Rehabilitation Act prohibits unreasonable medical decisions as such. Rather, the point of considering a medical decision's reasonableness in this context is to determine whether the decision was unreasonable in a way that reveals it to be discriminatory. In other words, a plaintiff's showing of medical unreasonableness must be framed within some larger theory of disability discrimination. For example, a plaintiff may argue that her physician's decision was so unreasonable -- in the sense of being arbitrary and capricious -- as to imply that it was pretext for some discriminatory motive, such as animus, fear, or "apathetic attitudes.” … Or, instead of arguing pretext, a plaintiff may argue that her physician's decision was discriminatory on its face, because it rested on stereotypes of the disabled rather than an individualized inquiry into the patient's condition -- and hence was "unreasonable" in that sense."
And above is one of your quotes from some case you found. It has nothing to do with your situation because you have not given anywhere in this thread any facts (and I emphasize that word) which would show that they demonstrated unreasonable medical attitudes.
No doctor is required to treat you or me or anyone else. If a doctor doesn't like me, he doesn't have to treat me.
Period.
Even if.
End of story.
In recap, there is not one shred of factual evidence showing that you were unlawfully discriminated against.
Well, in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever.
But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that.
Last edited:
Well, we've all wasted each other's time then... Sadly, there isn't a button to delete available to me.
Since you all feel (with some level of righteousness) that I am wrong and that there are NO FACTS (ha ha ha, I guess you had to be there) and that I'm a PAIN IN THE BUTT, remove this thread.
I'm wrong... I can contain my emotion... you are all psychologists with a better than my or my treating doctor's understanding of my condition. My diagnosis of BiPolar is per the DSM-IV which is ONLY so that INSURANCE COMPANIES know what they are paying for but is by no means the whole of who I am and why I am the way I am, or as you think, act the way I act... like it is a production of some sort.
Even though I have colored this post with fallout of my disability, you think it is because I'm "acting" and I can control it, well here's my effort at controlling it. Let me have the last word. Don't reply any further and I will accept that you are right, however, if anyone else posts after this, I'll still believe that I am more right than you.
You win, I give up, but in the end, I will win.
Since you all feel (with some level of righteousness) that I am wrong and that there are NO FACTS (ha ha ha, I guess you had to be there) and that I'm a PAIN IN THE BUTT, remove this thread.
I'm wrong... I can contain my emotion... you are all psychologists with a better than my or my treating doctor's understanding of my condition. My diagnosis of BiPolar is per the DSM-IV which is ONLY so that INSURANCE COMPANIES know what they are paying for but is by no means the whole of who I am and why I am the way I am, or as you think, act the way I act... like it is a production of some sort.
Even though I have colored this post with fallout of my disability, you think it is because I'm "acting" and I can control it, well here's my effort at controlling it. Let me have the last word. Don't reply any further and I will accept that you are right, however, if anyone else posts after this, I'll still believe that I am more right than you.
You win, I give up, but in the end, I will win.
seniorjudge
Senior Member
You can't control me.
In any event, you do not realize that no doctor has to treat you.
That's a simple concept you will not accept.
fairisfair
Senior Member
you are ornery!!!
seniorjudge
Senior Member
Thank you!you are ornery!!!
That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me today!!!
Y
Yong Li
Guest
Sounds like you were a defendant attorney. However, I fully appreciate your advice.
See, I'm right! You kept on talking... on and on... sounds like a lawyer, must have the last word.
He said, "Our initial review of [my] medical information and psychological history brought up serious concerns...." Nothing in my medical information EXCEPT my psychological history caused "serious concern." So much concern that they sent me to their psychiatrist. After meeting with her, she agreed that my psychological history wouldn't play a negative role in this procedure, ultimately voting for my having this procedure in the multidisciplinary meeting.
Then, after I exhibited my frustration, I was stereotyped as out of control bipolar, which I am not and was not. I was only frustrated with several people's errors and I told them about it. Because I complained, I became a problem case. Then, the only way to get rid of me was to disqualify me and essentially refer me away from their institution, even though they had the medical capability to address my particular needs.
29 U.S.C. section 794(a) "To prevail on a section 504 of the Rehabilitation act, I must prove four elements. 1) That I was disabled; 2) That i sought services from a federally funded entity; 3) that I was "otherwise qualified" to receive this service; and 4) that I was denied this service 'solely by reason of my disability.'"
1) I'm bipolar and that qualifies me: Nobody here questioned my being disabled (although many of you have doubts about my "anger" as a part of my disability, but you are not psychologists, so I won't hold that against you).
2) The hospital accepts Medicare as a form of payment and that makes them a federally funded entity for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act: Nobody questions this, right?
3) All my medical tests, BMI, Sleep Apnea and Medical Insurance passed the muster. Additionally, I passed the exam of the dietitian, the social worker and the psychiatrist. Nobody disputes this here, correct?
4) Here's where you all disagree with me (because you all are not my psychiatrist, psychologist, and therapist). The reason I was denied this service was, "nteractions between [me] and [their] staff have made it so that [a] close relationship cannot be developed..." So, in other words, because I do not have the interpersonal skills necessary (part of my disability) to create a "close relationship" I was rejected.
Now, this last part, the "close relationship" is not covered in the 2" binder that I have from the doctor and it is not, otherwise, a requirement. In fact, the doctor new that after I had the LapBand, I would see him post operatively and ultimately find a support group and "fill" center in my local community. He knew a "relationship" wasn't going to happen, his "relationship" fails the test of "reasonable medical support."
Now, let's say the "pretext" this "relationship" claim that is hiding his "discrimination" won't hold up, then I would argue that is is "discriminatory on its face, because it rested on stereotypes of the disabled rather than an individualized inquiry into the patient's condition -- and hence was 'unreasonable' in that sense."
How's that? He determined that because I was exhibiting a trait associated with my condition in when I exhibited my frustration. Rather than assess my condition with something as simple as, "Are you having a manic episode? or are you just frustrated because of the wait, delay and errors with your files?" Instead, he believed this was stereotypical of a person with my disability and rejected me.
Can any of you show any "reasonable medical support" for my doctors' decision? Someone mentioned that the "follow-up" would require a great deal of interaction between me and the staff. Yes, follow-up is necessary, however, I could have tests monitored by my primary care physician here in Florida (a standard course of treatment) and I can have the fills at fillcenterusa.com, There are two in my area: one less than 5 minutes from my house, the other 15 minutes from my house.
Please, point a gun at my case and blow it wide open... you can't.
Seniorjudge, I respect you, if it weren't for this board, I wouldn't have conducted what research I have so far, and I agree that this is an unusual case because it isn't an "HIV" case, but the law IS the law and these decisions come down in my favor.
Might it be possible for the doctor to claim it was a reasonable medical decision? Yes, however, that they agreed to treat me and nothing changed in my medical or psychological condition from when they agreed to when they opted not to treat me, they are going to have a hard time of it. The burden will be in their court.
For the record, I've already requested the full copy of my file. Additionally, because this is an educational institution, the email accounts are subject to the freedom of information act. I've requested, with a release of confidential information, the email pertaining to me and my case from all the staff involved.
He accepted my disability. In fact, when I met with him personally I said that I'm not a nice person. Here was a chance for him to say, "Well, I don't think we can help you." And then YOU would be right, however, he agreed to treat me. He assessed my situation, but just to make sure that he had the "experience or knowledge to address" my special needs, he sent me to his staff psychiatrist and LCSW. When they met, I passed. I could have been handled in that institution, instead, they referred me out because of my disability SOLELY. I win.
Maybe not, but what keeps you coming back? To defend your honor? I've not insulted like I've been insulted here, but that's okay, I tolerate that.
You are right, "no doctor has to treat" me. However, this doctor AGREED to treat me.
He said, "Our initial review of [my] medical information and psychological history brought up serious concerns...." Nothing in my medical information EXCEPT my psychological history caused "serious concern." So much concern that they sent me to their psychiatrist. After meeting with her, she agreed that my psychological history wouldn't play a negative role in this procedure, ultimately voting for my having this procedure in the multidisciplinary meeting.
Then, after I exhibited my frustration, I was stereotyped as out of control bipolar, which I am not and was not. I was only frustrated with several people's errors and I told them about it. Because I complained, I became a problem case. Then, the only way to get rid of me was to disqualify me and essentially refer me away from their institution, even though they had the medical capability to address my particular needs.
29 U.S.C. section 794(a) "To prevail on a section 504 of the Rehabilitation act, I must prove four elements. 1) That I was disabled; 2) That i sought services from a federally funded entity; 3) that I was "otherwise qualified" to receive this service; and 4) that I was denied this service 'solely by reason of my disability.'"
1) I'm bipolar and that qualifies me: Nobody here questioned my being disabled (although many of you have doubts about my "anger" as a part of my disability, but you are not psychologists, so I won't hold that against you).
2) The hospital accepts Medicare as a form of payment and that makes them a federally funded entity for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act: Nobody questions this, right?
3) All my medical tests, BMI, Sleep Apnea and Medical Insurance passed the muster. Additionally, I passed the exam of the dietitian, the social worker and the psychiatrist. Nobody disputes this here, correct?
4) Here's where you all disagree with me (because you all are not my psychiatrist, psychologist, and therapist). The reason I was denied this service was, "nteractions between [me] and [their] staff have made it so that [a] close relationship cannot be developed..." So, in other words, because I do not have the interpersonal skills necessary (part of my disability) to create a "close relationship" I was rejected.
Now, this last part, the "close relationship" is not covered in the 2" binder that I have from the doctor and it is not, otherwise, a requirement. In fact, the doctor new that after I had the LapBand, I would see him post operatively and ultimately find a support group and "fill" center in my local community. He knew a "relationship" wasn't going to happen, his "relationship" fails the test of "reasonable medical support."
Now, let's say the "pretext" this "relationship" claim that is hiding his "discrimination" won't hold up, then I would argue that is is "discriminatory on its face, because it rested on stereotypes of the disabled rather than an individualized inquiry into the patient's condition -- and hence was 'unreasonable' in that sense."
How's that? He determined that because I was exhibiting a trait associated with my condition in when I exhibited my frustration. Rather than assess my condition with something as simple as, "Are you having a manic episode? or are you just frustrated because of the wait, delay and errors with your files?" Instead, he believed this was stereotypical of a person with my disability and rejected me.
Can any of you show any "reasonable medical support" for my doctors' decision? Someone mentioned that the "follow-up" would require a great deal of interaction between me and the staff. Yes, follow-up is necessary, however, I could have tests monitored by my primary care physician here in Florida (a standard course of treatment) and I can have the fills at fillcenterusa.com, There are two in my area: one less than 5 minutes from my house, the other 15 minutes from my house.
Please, point a gun at my case and blow it wide open... you can't.
Seniorjudge, I respect you, if it weren't for this board, I wouldn't have conducted what research I have so far, and I agree that this is an unusual case because it isn't an "HIV" case, but the law IS the law and these decisions come down in my favor.
Might it be possible for the doctor to claim it was a reasonable medical decision? Yes, however, that they agreed to treat me and nothing changed in my medical or psychological condition from when they agreed to when they opted not to treat me, they are going to have a hard time of it. The burden will be in their court.
For the record, I've already requested the full copy of my file. Additionally, because this is an educational institution, the email accounts are subject to the freedom of information act. I've requested, with a release of confidential information, the email pertaining to me and my case from all the staff involved.
He accepted my disability. In fact, when I met with him personally I said that I'm not a nice person. Here was a chance for him to say, "Well, I don't think we can help you." And then YOU would be right, however, he agreed to treat me. He assessed my situation, but just to make sure that he had the "experience or knowledge to address" my special needs, he sent me to his staff psychiatrist and LCSW. When they met, I passed. I could have been handled in that institution, instead, they referred me out because of my disability SOLELY. I win.
Last edited:
CourtClerk
Senior Member
There are a ton of docs that will do the lap band for you if you pay them in cash. Since you have a right to the surgery (so you think), they have the right to be paid. Just get off your bi-polar ass pay them cash. And no, I wasn't 20 or 30 pounds overweight, I was morbidly obese and have to date.... lost 150 pounds.
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to make Medicare do something they've already said they aren't going to do. Go get a real job with real insurance and try again.
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to make Medicare do something they've already said they aren't going to do. Go get a real job with real insurance and try again.
HA HA HA.... I'm pointing and laughing at you. My insurance DOES cover this!!! HA HA HA. It was regional until February 2006. Now it is national. It IS covered.... HA HA HA HA HA. I had offered to pay cash, but once they know that I have Medicare, they have to take that. Yes, I have enough money in my savings and investments to pay for that PLUS the trip across the U.S. to have it close to family.
What was your point? That I'm less human because I'm disabled? See, this is the type of discrimination I can ONLY laugh at. HA HA HA HA.
Okay, I'm done.
Congratulations on losing 150 LBs. Why didn't you contribute something other than an attack on my so called "lack" of insurance. You could have said something like, "I know bipolar people won't get off their ass and do what I had to do to lose 150 LBs..." No, you are so naive.
fairisfair
Senior Member
I claim LAST WORD**************..
try again.
try again.
P
PamiToni
Guest
No pcgumshoe. No one is thinking your less than human for *being* disabled. Your disability is brought on by yourself. I am a victim of severe depression but I get up and I work at being positive and I try to find happiness in my misery. I also have Endometriosis and will never have my own children. I know you'll thinking no big deal you can adopt but those kids would never be mine genetically. Ok so I could adopt and you could go on a diet, easier said then done. The only discrimination you suffer is also self inflicted, you like to play the poor little me game, no one understands, they are picking on the poor fat kid, boo hoo. Get a grip and get passed your whining. You think life will be better if you were thin? No you would just find other issues to bitch and moan about.
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, and sold it on e-bay!
JBK in Georgia
Junior Member
Sorry to stir the puddin' a bit, but...
This situation is actually a far closer call than many here believe. Assuming that the OP is legally disabled (which he can probably show based on his diagnoses), and otherwise qualified for the treatment, if he can show that the reason why treatment was refused was because of the disability (or handicap under the Rehabilitation Act, which is essentially the same legally), he could have a claim. The issue here, however, is whether or not his real or perceived inability to get along with medical staff providers was disability discrimination or not. Generally, a medical provider may rely on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for refusing treatment. I do not know, and I do not have the time right now to spend a couple of hours to research, whether or not such an attitude that the OP claims to be the result of his disability can be such a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. To use an analogy, if a disability causes a person to miss doctor's appointments, which are essential to the treatment of the patient, the patient would be hard pressed to argue disability discrimination if the doctor failed to treat him because it was the disability that made him miss the essential appointments. Nevertheless, it is a closer call than one might think.
All this being said, my gut (and this is not based on legal research but is only an educated guess), I do not think that the facts outlined by the OP amount to a legal claim. However, I would encourage the OP to consult an attorney who works in civil rights and public accommodation law to get a researched opinion.
Hey, Senior Judge, I thought I’d be ornery as well. In response to your statement, “In any event, you do not realize that no doctor has to treat you,” I’d direct you to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), which provides, “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who ... operates a place of public accommodation.” The term “public accommodation” is defined to include the “professional office of a health care provider.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F). I guess doctors do, in some cases, have to treat patients. The Supremes agreed, saying that dentists could not refuse to treat HIV positive patients without objective evidence that such treatment posed a serious threat to their health. I don’t remember the cite, but it was a case about 8-10 years ago, something v. Abbott, I think.
This situation is actually a far closer call than many here believe. Assuming that the OP is legally disabled (which he can probably show based on his diagnoses), and otherwise qualified for the treatment, if he can show that the reason why treatment was refused was because of the disability (or handicap under the Rehabilitation Act, which is essentially the same legally), he could have a claim. The issue here, however, is whether or not his real or perceived inability to get along with medical staff providers was disability discrimination or not. Generally, a medical provider may rely on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for refusing treatment. I do not know, and I do not have the time right now to spend a couple of hours to research, whether or not such an attitude that the OP claims to be the result of his disability can be such a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. To use an analogy, if a disability causes a person to miss doctor's appointments, which are essential to the treatment of the patient, the patient would be hard pressed to argue disability discrimination if the doctor failed to treat him because it was the disability that made him miss the essential appointments. Nevertheless, it is a closer call than one might think.
All this being said, my gut (and this is not based on legal research but is only an educated guess), I do not think that the facts outlined by the OP amount to a legal claim. However, I would encourage the OP to consult an attorney who works in civil rights and public accommodation law to get a researched opinion.
Hey, Senior Judge, I thought I’d be ornery as well. In response to your statement, “In any event, you do not realize that no doctor has to treat you,” I’d direct you to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), which provides, “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who ... operates a place of public accommodation.” The term “public accommodation” is defined to include the “professional office of a health care provider.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F). I guess doctors do, in some cases, have to treat patients. The Supremes agreed, saying that dentists could not refuse to treat HIV positive patients without objective evidence that such treatment posed a serious threat to their health. I don’t remember the cite, but it was a case about 8-10 years ago, something v. Abbott, I think.
Last edited:
pcgumshoe,
Have you tried calling the doctor's office and apologizing to the people you offended? Maybe you could send them some flowers and explain that you got irritable because this is very important to you and that you are nervous about it all... (or something like that... whatever you think is good.) Just be as sweet as you can. And you may learn something yourself, which is that people generally react more positively to kindness.
Also, you keep bringing up your therapist and your diagnosis. I understand all of that, but would like to know if your therapist spends any time working on your behavior, so that you may fit in better and get along with people better. There are many apporaches to therapy, and I think some help with dealing with disappointment/not getting your way, etc. would be beneficial to you. (Hell, we all could use help with that at times!) Have you actually tried saying to yourself something like, "I will overcome this disability. I will work on my attitude." ?? Attitude has a LOT to do with it. I just wonder if your therapist helps you from that angle. If not, find one who does. Spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely when it comes to therapy.
Have you tried calling the doctor's office and apologizing to the people you offended? Maybe you could send them some flowers and explain that you got irritable because this is very important to you and that you are nervous about it all... (or something like that... whatever you think is good.) Just be as sweet as you can. And you may learn something yourself, which is that people generally react more positively to kindness.
Also, you keep bringing up your therapist and your diagnosis. I understand all of that, but would like to know if your therapist spends any time working on your behavior, so that you may fit in better and get along with people better. There are many apporaches to therapy, and I think some help with dealing with disappointment/not getting your way, etc. would be beneficial to you. (Hell, we all could use help with that at times!) Have you actually tried saying to yourself something like, "I will overcome this disability. I will work on my attitude." ?? Attitude has a LOT to do with it. I just wonder if your therapist helps you from that angle. If not, find one who does. Spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely when it comes to therapy.
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">