Tweet
Hi
Can anyone advise.
My cousin suffered a head injury after an accident and a legally appointed neurologist has been appointed to provide a diagnosis. They advised that my cousin needed to be seen by a ‘treating neurologist’ which happened. Since then however that treating neurologist has stopped practising but did provide the GP with a list of medications to be trialled. The second medication seems to be helping which is great. However the legally appointed neurologist is insisting that my cousin is seen by a new treating neurologist but the GP disagrees. Their opinion is that the medication suggested by the previous treating neurologist is working and there is no need to stop that medication only to ‘trial’ a different drug which may or may not be as effective. My cousin is feeling that the legally appointed neurologist is treating her like a guinea pig and is happy with the current medication.
Who ultimately takes priority is my question as there are some significant issues with the neurologist being incredibly slow responding to report requests etc which as a result has caused over 2 years worth of delays. My cousins GP has equally expressed concerns given the neurologist has over 2 years worth of data in order to provide a diagnosis but keeps sitting on the fence rather providing a conclusion, with constant referrals to other departments to eliminate of potentials causes of my cousins migraines. Each individual referral is further met with huge delays, when the seperate referrals could have been booked in parallel. Basically the neurologist and the supplier of the neurologist service is appalling yet the solicitors don’t seem overly concerned. To put this case into context it has been ongoingu for over 6.5 years!!.
My cousin nis has a GP letter stating that the medication being prescribed will NOT be changed in order to simply trial a different drug which contradicts the neurologists request.
Can anyone advise.
My cousin suffered a head injury after an accident and a legally appointed neurologist has been appointed to provide a diagnosis. They advised that my cousin needed to be seen by a ‘treating neurologist’ which happened. Since then however that treating neurologist has stopped practising but did provide the GP with a list of medications to be trialled. The second medication seems to be helping which is great. However the legally appointed neurologist is insisting that my cousin is seen by a new treating neurologist but the GP disagrees. Their opinion is that the medication suggested by the previous treating neurologist is working and there is no need to stop that medication only to ‘trial’ a different drug which may or may not be as effective. My cousin is feeling that the legally appointed neurologist is treating her like a guinea pig and is happy with the current medication.
Who ultimately takes priority is my question as there are some significant issues with the neurologist being incredibly slow responding to report requests etc which as a result has caused over 2 years worth of delays. My cousins GP has equally expressed concerns given the neurologist has over 2 years worth of data in order to provide a diagnosis but keeps sitting on the fence rather providing a conclusion, with constant referrals to other departments to eliminate of potentials causes of my cousins migraines. Each individual referral is further met with huge delays, when the seperate referrals could have been booked in parallel. Basically the neurologist and the supplier of the neurologist service is appalling yet the solicitors don’t seem overly concerned. To put this case into context it has been ongoingu for over 6.5 years!!.
My cousin nis has a GP letter stating that the medication being prescribed will NOT be changed in order to simply trial a different drug which contradicts the neurologists request.
Comment