George Zimmerman's Injuries #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm just not understanding why there is so much criticism and suspicion of the FP clinic personnel? I think that is not logical at all, and very unfair. There is absolutely nothing at all that has been released that should cause any of us at this time to criticize the doc/ PAs, or clinic staff. They were just doing their job the day GZ was seen there. There was just no reason for them to suspect or cover up ANYTHING. It doesn't matter why he chose that particular clinic and docs-- they were a valid choice for the level of care he was seeking.

If criticism of medical documentation and care is WARRANTED according to the evidence, then that is a different story. At this point, there is a certain zeal to cast suspicion over anyone who has come into the slightest contact with GZ. In the case of these professionals, that is VERY unfair and unwarranted. At this point, I haven't seen the record, so I don't feel anyone (myself included) should criticize the efforts of the health care providers. I am sure they have been dreading the day their names would be made public in this case, because of all of the extreme hate and rage that has been heaped on the PATIENT they saw in their clinic. Who they didn't even know would become so hated on a national level.

For just a minute-- imagine someone you know works at that clinic. Imagine the concerns they have for the negative publicity impacting their workplace, potential loss of patients, potentially decreased revenue from lower office visits, etc. Not to mention possible fears for their own safety if a crowd decides to picket or protest outside their clinic. Harrassment of witnesses is a real and valid concern in this very inflamed case. The providers from this clinic will likely be named as defense witnesses if and when this comes to trial.

I'm just very disturbed that anyone would feel it is valid and acceptable to indirectly bash the health care providers in this situation. If there emerges good reason to heap criticism on them, such as substandard documentation or care, then that is fair game. But to bash them and insinuate that they were complicit in some kind of conspiracy to falsify medical records, or imply that they were a "bad" or "wrong" choice because other docs were closer to his home, or obliquely criticize the credentials of an osteopathic physician because he is not an MD, is ridiculous, imo.

Respectfully snipped; emphasis mine


Thank you! AGREED.


Mod note:

Just catching up on this thread and addressing this now.


The bashing and these ridiculous accusations without any merit whatsoever that are insinuating these medical professionals falsified anything or had any motive other than doing their jobs in a professional manner STOPS NOW. Unless you have something tangible to support that claim, drop this whole line of discussion now.

We're not going to accuse anyone of anything so vile unless there is some sort of proof to back it up.

Further posts like that w/o a link to back up the accusation will result in TOs.
 
Is the medical document on line anywhere for full viewing. That actually looks like a set of discharge instructions and not the findings of an exam!
I don't think ABC has released it yet except in the videos.
 
According to a tiny report by Associated Press, "Zimmerman was treated Feb. 27 at Altamonte Family Practice."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/14/2799523/defense-has-discovery-in-neighborhood.html

If you look up Altamonte Family Practice you will see that it is headed up by Andrew E. Krupitsky, D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy) and two female Physician Assistants. In addition there is a large office staff (all female).

When Crump discussed the report on Anderson 360 last night, he kept referencing a female so I assume from that that George was actually seen by one of the Physician Assistants. Since one of them is most interested in Pediatrics and Women's Health, it is likely that George was seen by the other PA.

Of course, until we see the actual document, it is all guess work based on what O'Mara has shared with ABC and what ABC has shared with other news organizations. And, O'Mara did as much as say he was planning on releasing info. It's in an earlier WESH article on either Monday or Tuesday.

http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/31065220/detail.html
 
Respectfully snipped; emphasis mine


Thank you! AGREED.


Mod note:

Just catching up on this thread and addressing this now.


The bashing and these ridiculous accusations without any merit whatsoever that are insinuating these medical professionals falsified anything or had any motive other than doing their jobs in a professional manner STOPS NOW. Unless you have something tangible to support that claim, drop this whole line of discussion now.

We're not going to accuse anyone of anything so vile unless there is some sort of proof to back it up.

Further posts like that w/o a link to back up the accusation will result in TOs.

ITA. Just because someone has a family physician doesn't mean that family physician is going to falsify any medical evidence. Some insurance plans REQUIRE that a person declares a PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER. You have to go to your PCP first before going to any specialists. That doesn't imply any sort of special relationship that would make a medical professional to falsify any documents.
 
All this is, IMO.....is MOM trying to $pin. He has continued to drag his feet with the evidence being released and this is why, he wants to leak what is favorable to GZ first.
 
Wonder if donations to the account have dropped off and this 'leak' is the stimulus to try to increase activity!
 
I think GZ used the reason "legal excuse" cause it was easier than explaining the real reason he needed the appt. I also believe it was recommended by someone to "document" his injuries in case he was charged.

I still believe Trayvon was "standing his ground" but I am moving closer to just sitting on the fence on this one.
 
When a patient presents to a doctor, MD or Osteopath, the circumstances which caused his injuries can only be described by the patient. A doctor then treats the patient for the injury no matter what he/she is told caused them and usually accepts the story on faith. So. In my post regarding GZ's injuries nowhere did I criticize the doctor. I did question why no xrays of his nose which he contends was broken were taken. I thought it was a valid question and I still do, considering the DO has two xray technicians and at least one xray machine. One assumes from that that the DO can read xrays and I wonder why he did not take an xray of GZ's nose since apparently GZ thought it was broken. IMO the onus is on GZ to prove the broken nose and apparently he refused to go to a specialist, which is what the DO did suggest, quite properly.
I do not know this man nor do I know the quality of his patient care but since he is Board Certified and licensed in FL, I must assume he is qualified to practice there.
 
I want EMT documents, police taken photos of GZ frontal and side views, Trayvon's autopsy report!
 
But the report also shows Zimmerman declined hospitalization the night of the shooting, and then declined the advice of his doctor to make a follow-up appointment with an ear nose and throat doctor.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...juries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.T7O5Znpo9Xa


I would really like to see the dates on this report. Did George go back to this Dr. at a later time and tell him he did not go to another Dr. or did George just tell him right there in the office he would not go to another Dr.? The wording is funny.

This is a perfect example of why words matter, and why it's a dangerous practice to let ones opinion hinge too much on a statement in a newspaper.

What you quoted said that he declined *hospitalization*. I have never once, in any other report, seen it suggested that he needed *hospitalization*.

From dictionary.com:
hospitalization, noun
the act, process, or state of being hospitalized.

Also from dictionary.com:
hospitalized: verb
to place in a hospital for medical care or observation: The doctor hospitalized grandfather as soon as she checked his heart.

Being checked out in an ER and being *hospitalized* are not the same things...
 
ITA. Just because someone has a family physician doesn't mean that family physician is going to falsify any medical evidence. Some insurance plans REQUIRE that a person declares a PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER. You have to go to your PCP first before going to any specialists. That doesn't imply any sort of special relationship that would make a medical professional to falsify any documents.

I would never assert that a doctor would falsify records for a patient/friend/acquantance or anyone else for that matter and I disassociate myself from any such suggestion.
 
IMO......no xrays because they would prove a "likely broken" nose.....wasn't.
 
When a patient presents to a doctor, MD or Osteopath, the circumstances which caused his injuries can only be described by the patient. A doctor then treats the patient for the injury no matter what he/she is told caused them and usually accepts the story on faith. So. In my post regarding GZ's injuries nowhere did I criticize the doctor. I did question why no xrays of his nose which he contends was broken were taken. I thought it was a valid question and I still do, considering the DO has two xray technicians and at least one xray machine. One assumes from that that the DO can read xrays and I wonder why he did not take an xray of GZ's nose since apparently GZ thought it was broken. IMO the onus is on GZ to prove the broken nose and apparently he refused to go to a specialist, which is what the DO did suggest, quite properly.
I do not know this man nor do I know the quality of his patient care but since he is Board Certified and licensed in FL, I must assume he is qualified to practice there.

Doctors do not recommend x-ray films and blood work routinely because these tests do not alter the course of treatment.

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/broken-nose
 
Released just enough to stir up some carp! And maybe to increase donations to GZ's legal fund!

After all the complains about wanting to see medical records, I can't believe some posters here complain that medical records were leaked. All of this information is supposed to be released per Florida sunshine laws.
 
IMO......no xrays because they would prove a "likely broken" nose.....wasn't.

With two visible black eyes and a doc saying likely/possible/probable (not sure the exact wording) fracture, George would have had no reason to know that his nose was not broken. And that would be true under any circumstances. My assumption is that he didn't go for an x-ray b/c he knew or felt that it was unecessary just to confirm what he already knew. There would have been no further tx, just a big bill for the x-ray or whatever technology was used. Who needs that. I wouldn't have gone either. jmo
 
Is it typical that there would be a 1 (or 2?) page narrative from a doctor's visit? Every time I go to the doc or take my boys to their pedi, the doc may write some stuff down on a chart or enter it into the computer. But, I have never seen any medical records like this narrative.

Yes-- this is quite typical. Particularly with the kind of medical documentation software used vs "hand writing records" as we did in the "old" days (lol!). Records are typically set up as templates. If you print a hard copy, all of the templated areas (even if unpopulated) may print out.

And some providers document LOTS and LOTS all the time....others are more "lean and mean" in their documentation. With the advent of dictation systems, there is more incentive to document more, rather than less, as the provider simply talks into the telephone device. I'd have to see the pages themselves in their entirety to see what kind of system may have been used, and to comment further about the depth and quality of the documentation from the provider. Do we know who he saw? Did he see the D.O., or one of his PA's?

Is the record available for review anywhere yet, or just the screen caps?
 
With two visible black eyes and a doc saying likely/possible/probable (not sure the exact wording) fracture, George would have had no reason to know that his nose was not broken. And that would be true under any circumstances. My assumption is that he didn't go for an x-ray b/c he knew or felt that it was unecessary just to confirm what he already knew. There would have been no further tx, just a big bill for the x-ray or whatever technology was used. Who needs that. I wouldn't have gone either. jmo

Where is the "probable" nose fracture even coming from? From the part of the records shown by abc, I didn't see any "probable, possible or likely" next to words "closed fracture."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
1,632
Total visitors
1,695

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,921
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top