|
January 2006, Vol. 16, No. 1
Table of Contents
CBP® Non-Profit Matches Dr. Bill Harris' $25,000 Research Grant • Counter Point Round III • Dr Deed Harrison is the Most Published Chiropractor in the Index Medicus • Flawed Thinking • It's Don's Opinion • JCCA Publishes CBP® Structural Rehab Protocol • More Studies to Confirm the Validity and Reliability of PosturePrint™ • Thriving in the New Health Care Marketplace • Organic Chiropractic • Patient Education • Point Round III • The Purpose Driven Practice • Radiation Hormesis • Research Corner • Subluxation Update • System Failure • Ten New Year's Resolutions for Your Practice • Chiropractic: A Useful Component of Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabiitation • Triano is a Chiropractic Pariah •
back to front page
My Opinion: Triano is a
Chiropractic IME Pariah
by Charles N. Cooper, DC
Dr. Charles Cooper graduated from National Chiropractic College in 1955 and has been in practice for 46 years in Baltimore, MD. He has written hundreds of chiropractic articles, essays and opuses. Dr. Cooper has traveled the entire world and is presently writing his seventh volume of a ten volume series, I Cast My Shadow on the Earth, Memoirs of the World Travels of a Man of His Own Dimension.
Last issue, with interest, I read Dr. Paul Oakley’s article in AJCC (Vol. 15, No. 4, Oct 2005). Dr. Oakley’s article was in regards to Dr. Triano, and since I had my own experience with Triano, I felt compelled to respond.
Personally, I have classified Triano as a Cassius Horgenus to the Chiropractic profession and a Chiropractic pariah. In 1994, he was an IME against my patient who was severely injured in a dog attack. Triano claims that “he was an IME in his early days.” Would his early days be the early 1980s, or mid 1990s?
On 4/04/1994, my patient was attacked by a vicious Rottweiler. She had 30 severe bite wounds all over her body, including hematomas, and fractured vertebral bodies of T11, T12, L1, and L2. These vertebral body fractures subsequently produced a hemangioma in the body of L1, which caused the entire body of L1 to collapse to the height of 1/4 inch, and later a hemangioma of T7, which was treated by vertebroplasty, followed by a hemangioma of the entire body of T6, which remained symptom free with chiropractic care. My patient died early from heart failure at age 62 in 2004. To what could her early death be attributed, if not this attack.
Triano was one of the IMEs regarding my supposedly “overutilization of treatments” for this severely injured woman. Triano and the insurance company claimed that I provided medically unnecessary treatments. His primary frivolous critical focus of my care for this patient was his claim of a “lack of in-depth psychological consultations”!
I had treated my patient initially for 10-12 hours daily, utilizing multiple modalities, adjusting her multiple times throughout the day, and constantly providing her with counseling about her activities of daily living, her beginning severe limitations, and her emotional state. All this was demonstrated in my daily notes, treatment plans, and charts in her large file at my office.
My care, long term, resulted in my patient becoming physically and emotionally independent. She was able to carry out all ADL and functions. She began to enjoy health club activities, including my prescribed swimming pool exercises, walking her own dog, driving her car, and being able to take trips/vacations. My files on her case are over six feet thick, and it is apparent and evident that Triano never examined or read my records, and certainly never read my documentation in their entirety. But, why should he, when he was paid to reduce claims?
I took Triano (and my other IMEers) to the rack with my rebuttals with my dialectical analyzations. I criticized every one of the sentences in his (and their) lengthy reports. The result was a total destruction and decimation of his (and their) negative criticisms and analyses of my reports, my protocol, and my treatment paradigm. But, I ask, “Why should I have had to answer for caring for this severely injured woman?” Is Insurance Company money that important to Triano that he would deny this severely injured woman palliative and later improved health status care?
Because the owner of the Rottweiler was unreliable, financially insolvent, a threat to skip (and actually did skip after the settlement), my patient decided to accept the insurance company’s maximum coverage, which amounted to over six figures plus all medical and chiropractic expenses.
Triano, to me, in his delusions of grandeur (in proclaiming himself “the” unquestionable authority in the chiropractic profession) is in reality a chiropractic nemesis and pariah.
Triano and the Insurance Company lost, and my patient won.
— Charles N. Cooper, DC
[I am Don Harrison’s
“Ultimate” Complimenter]
Baltimore, MD
|
Sponsored By:
|
