[amgsl55]

Your insurance premiums are through the roof, for good reason.

This was done under a local at a clinic or the doctors rooms I presume I thoght it was under a general in a hospital, I guess the procedure is somewhat less formal when a procedure is done under those conditions, it's not exactly a heart transplant.

He has every right to sue though if he has a mind to.

actually dodger, I'm not wanting to get into an argument here but there are always two sides to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in between.  I too thought it was a procedure done under a general when I first read the post, but all stories evolve.

Any invasive procedure has a protocol, regardless of the setting it is done under.

Don't laugh at insurance premiums...guess who pays for them in the end...I'll give you a clue...it's not the doc.

[dodger]

Don't laugh at insurance premiums...guess who pays for them in the end...I'll give you a clue...it's not the doc.

I wasn't laughing it's outrageous but as with Valuers and other professionals it stems from rampant litigation encouraged by the legal profession.

[eddievanhalen]

there really are a lot of arm chair critics here

how does anyone here (except for the owner) know if the bad side actually looked bad at the time of surgery.

Sure, it does seem odd as the story was portrayed but without anyone actually seeing the surgical site no one is really qualified to comment, and as for calls to find a lawyer...hello USA!!!!

I quoted you the "owner" in my post who said one side looked fine and the other "not so much".............sounds clear enough to me.

No need to get all defensive - like I said I have plenty of experience in the area and understand the pressure involved and that mistakes can happen.  This one though just sounds very careless based on what info we have.

[amgsl55]

I wasn't laughing it's outrageous but as with Valuers and other professionals it stems from rampant litigation encouraged by the legal profession.

it's more than just the litigation that goes through the courts but the countless trivial claims for which an insurance company will payout because it will be too costly to pursue through the courts and in the event where the insurance company will undoubtedly win they will have little chance to recover costs.

I had a lady recently claim $10k.  She identified a prosthesis I placed to be the origin of her chronic pain, needless to say she had the same pain documented over the past 10 years.  the basis of her claim was a second opinion to identify "my" prosthesis which had impinged on a nerve canal despite the radiologist reporting that my prosthesis was fine but a prior procedure done had impinged on the nerve canal.  Even though the specialist providing the second opinion probably held the xray the wrong way around ( I can find no other explanation) the insurance company deemed that the costs of going to court ( approx 30-40K) will probably never be recovered, so here's $10k little lady...go run away.

The public end up paying our outrageous insurance fees -  it's just part of the overhead and end pricing reflects this,

[amgsl55]

I quoted you the "owner" in my post who said one side looked fine and the other "not so much".............sounds clear enough to me.

No need to get all defensive - like I said I have plenty of experience in the area and understand the pressure involved and that mistakes can happen.  This one though just sounds very careless based on what info we have.

lets not forget the 3 days between the consultation where the toe was "not so much" to the time of surgery -  takes abut 2 days for inflammation to resolve.

Not getting defensive, just not passing judgement -  kinda like playing devils advocate.

[eddievanhalen]

Fair enough re the inflammation - not necessarily likely but possible.   Even if it wasn't staring him in the face on the day , he either didn't take notes (or documented it wrong) at the original consultation or didn't refer to them (or misread them) on the day of the surgery .   Either way - not good and no devils advocate will change that.  I do understand your point re not jumping to conclusions but I can't see a good excuse here.

Everyone I know (including me)  has made mistakes at times , often under severe pressure - sometimes it just comes down to luck whether it does harm or not.  If I'd made this mistake I'd say the same thing.......

Cheers.

[amgsl55]

Even if it wasn't staring him in the face on the day , he either didn't take notes (or documented it wrong)

Cheers.

I've been guilty of documenting the wrong side a few times, and I'm sure alot have. I've also been guilty of not documenting some consultations at the time of the appointment and need to rely on memory.

However, at the time of the procedure, most will cross check their notes with xrays, clinical photos, verbal confirmation with patient and site inspection.  if any doubt - procedure is cancelled.

My guess is that the ingrown nail was dealt with by a GP who dabbles in the occasional procedure.

[cel]

Ok guys, a bit more info from me...

The toe was never inflamed, I've had it quite often so I knew it was starting to happen and beyond self repair so then I went to the doctor.

If you looked at the toe from a distance it looked not too bad, but more upclose you could clearly see one side was growing in and the other side was perfectly fine.

IMO that's even a bigger reason to be extra vigilant and check the toe before the procedure and if still in doubt, just ask me... not just randomly pick a side like it seems was done to me.

I won't be suing of course, why would I do that, I've got better things to do than waste everyone's time. I'm obviously not happy but it's not that big of a deal, I'll get over it

[dodger]

I was always taught to cut toenails straight across, not round in the shape of the toe.

[amgsl55]

I was always taught to cut toenails straight across, not round in the shape of the toe.

I cant see mine

so i let her cut em