No bending views of the cervical spine were
indicated in this PI case upon reaching MMI:

Is there any benefit for taking an x-ray at the end of care? Most ‘reviewers’ deny payment.

There is a good answer and practical documentation to justify end of care x-rays.

Dr. Gary suggests if the DC has ‘good reason’ to suspect the late effects of the cervical sprain was causing significant ligamentous hypermobility, then an x-ray is mandatory.

The authority comes from the 5th Edition [AMA Guides] requiring that cervical bending radiographs studies serve as a means of assessing a condition known as "loss of motion segment integrity.”

If detected the finding is very significant. This alone can justify to a whole person impairment of 25 to 28%.

For a copy of Dr. L’s method to prove up this impairment email:

Disaster in San Bernardino, Plaintiff’s Attorney
accused of managing care and not the DC

Justin Shupe was only 18 years old. But he was rear-ended by an 18,000-pound commercial truck while he was stopped in his Ford Ranger. Justin was taken to Kaiser ER. Justin claimed he could not work for 2 years, nor enjoy a normal social life. His lawyer argues that Justin was an “egg-shell” victim—susceptible of major back pain. Justin began care with a chiropractor. Then his attorney took over.

Defendant argued there was no “significant’ trauma. That Justin’s attorney made “unreasonable and unnecessary” referrals to medical services. Such services included unneeded MRI’s, EMG’s, nerve conduction studies, one epidural and future facet block injection for the rest of his life [57 years more]

Medical bills claimed were $33,761.43 and over $432,000 in future medicals with $18,000 in Loss of Earnings. Defendant claimed there were only $2,688 in legitimate medical bills.

Justin’s attorney asked the jury for $210,000. Defendant offered $25,000.

The Jury heard the evidence for 13 days but took only 6 hours to render a decision for $19,974.

Shupe vs Southeast Trading, Inc. Honorable Gilbert Ochoa. CIV DS 1411344. April 18, 2016.

1.   There is only ONE quarterback managing care. That is the DC. Not the attorney or some MD.
2.   The jury did not believe an 18-year-old needed MRI, NCV’s etc. at his age.
3.   Overreaching is very dangerous when arguing to a jury.

We work everywhere in California

From the Oregon border to the Mexican, we examine any case in California to see if we can substantially help your patient.

Call 800-626-0003 or check our web site: