When the Doctor doctors . . . Modified Chart Notes Impugn Chiropractor’s Credibility
QUESTION:
So what happens when in the course of medical production, defense counsel discovers that there are two sets of chart notes for the same two dates, one made contemporaneously and one –much more supportive of the work injury—created two months later?
ANSWER:
Defense counsel has a field day on cross-examination
The DME doc (Dr. Schwartz) has a field day on direct examination
The claimant’s medical expert (Dr. Feeney) looks suspect, to the prejudice of the injured worker
Dr. Eskander (the other medical expert) doesn’t get paid, at least not under workers comp
The case is Letitia Stainbrook v. Millcroft Senior Center, IAB Hr’g 1477012 (May 13, 2021) denying claimant’s DCD in favor of deeming the complaints in question a continuation of a preexisting injury process. Nothing in this post is to suggest any wrongdoing on the part of counsel or Dr. Eskander, and as for Dr. Feeney, let’s just say his record-keeping falls grossly short of best practices, to put it kindly. Props to Gary Baker, rightfully identified in one of my first-ever blog posts as “The Savvy Sleuth”, for his unwavering attention to detail in uncovering this irregularity.
Irreverently Yours,
Cassandra Roberts
