George Zimmerman's Injuries #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of them claim though they have the report though do they? Everything in them is from what ABC released?

No - the official reports have not yet been released. Good gracious, I thought we were all clear on that! lol

See the thread title re: "leaked reports".
 
I believe one needs a license to practice medicine in order to prescribe an rx.

A psychologist would not have such credentials.

A psychiatrist, yes, but a psychologist, no. At least not in my state.

Psychologists can not prescribe meds. in FL.
 
I believe one needs a license to practice medicine in order to prescribe an rx.

A psychologist would not have such credentials.

A psychiatrist, yes, but a psychologist, no. At least not in my state.

That's true. It sounds like George already had a psychologist and that may have led to the prescriptions he was reported to be taking. Many psychologists refer their patients to a psychiatrist who prescribes medication based on the diagnosis made by the psychologist.
 
No - the official reports have not yet been released. Good gracious, I thought we were all clear on that! lol

See the thread title re: "leaked reports".




That is not what I am talking about. This is Georges medical report and George and his lawyer can do anything with it they want. It really is not a leak if one of them gave it to the news anonymously. I did not see any court stamp on it from the video.

The autopsy report is property of the State given to the Defense. Any information on it is a leak until it is released to the public. They are very different things.

As far as I know ABC is the only one that has been given this medical report and I was just trying to find out if anyone else was given it.
 
Could he have been off work prior to the shooting due to an earlier injury or illness?

Doesn't make sense that he needed to get a doctor's clearance the morning after the shooting to go back to work. He couldn't have missed any work yet because of the injuries he received the night before.

Again, something is totally fishy -- like so much else of the story and details. _ :waitasec:

According to the quote in suzihawk's link in this thread, he went in to work the next day to tell them what was going on. At which point, presumably, they sent him to the doc to get cleared to work. Probably a worker's comp. issue.
 
He obviously did both, Daisy.

Narratives are not uncommon, however they are usually done for a reason. I imagine both the prosecution and the defense wanted one and it was requested.
In other instances, narratives are dictated for the benefit of another physician to whom they may be referring the patient.

So, this narrative could have been written after the Dr. visit? I'm just trying to understand this. I have seen my son's medical records when we switched pedis and there was nothing like this in their records.
 
Originally Posted by Sun48shine;
They should have taken xrays When I was in a car accident and hit my nose on the dashboard, xrays were taken. The doctor requested the xrays of my nose. I was glad there were no breaks.
Originally Posted by BiancaS;
It appears that the doctor told him to go to an ENT for that reason. Some doctors offices don't have x-ray capabilities. GZ told him he would not be going. Apparently he wanted it documented exactly as it was and he was not concerned with anything more. MOO.
bbm

Funny thing, BiancaS, it appears that the "Altamonte Family Practice" does indeed have X-ray capabilities right there within the office. They have TWO X-ray techs listed as employed there.

I guess George not only did NOT want to see an ENT physician, he also apparently did NOT want his IFFY *broken nose* X-rayed right there at the DO's clinic.

Interesting, eh?

How broken do you suppose his nose really was? _ :waitasec:

http://www.altamontefamilypractice....ntent&view=category&layout=blog&id=2&Itemid=3
 
So, this narrative could have been written after the Dr. visit? I'm just trying to understand this. I have seen my son's medical records when we switched pedis and there was nothing like this in their records.

If you need a letter from a doctor for whatever reason you can request that doctor writes you a letter.
 
So, this narrative could have been written after the Dr. visit? I'm just trying to understand this. I have seen my son's medical records when we switched pedis and there was nothing like this in their records.

I have gone through many medical records for my job and it is not uncommon to see reports like this.

Also, don't know how all doctors do it but my pediatrician always picks up the phone and begins giving a narrative of the appointment as we are leaving. I always assumed that this was being transcribed at some point.
 
If photos of his knuckles are shown to the public, then we will know more.

Autopsy photos are not released to the public, for good reason.

How black were George's eyes?

Were his black eyes documented with photographs that can be proven to be authentic -- not black from his cosmetologist wife, skilled with make-up -- or not black from photoshopping?

There would have been no reason for a family practice doc or PA to take photos of GZ's black eyes. That is not part of any standard care or office visit. If photos for legal purposes are needed, such as to document domestic abuse injuries, etc, a LE photographer takes those. And any health care povider worth their salt could spot "make up" enhanced injuries during exam.

Altamonte Family Physicians is a very small clinic-- one doc, 2 PA's, and office staff. Unless this clinic is co-located with other lab and radiology resources, it's unlikely they have extensive imaging capability on site. That is very expensive and cost prohibitive for the size of that practice-- all of the regulations that have to be implemented with a radiology dept, building codes and shielding, etc.

There would have been no reason, with a minor cartilage nasal fracture, to do any kind of imaging to "document" broken cartilage at the FP clinic. If the doc (or EMS) suspected serious facal injury, there would have been recommendations for immediate urgent care/ ER, and imaging to rule out Le Fort fractures, which are facial and orbital fractures. None of the medical providers thought his injuries looked serious enough to get images. A referral to an ENT is pretty much standard-- and I took that comment as a referral for the tonsil complaint as much as for the nasal fracture.

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.
 
Who knows IF he really had black eyes?

Yes, you certainly can have black eyes from a broken nose. You do not always have black eyes from a broken nose -- and you can have black eyes without a broken or even a bruised nose.

How black were George's eyes?

Were his black eyes documented with photographs that can be proven to be authentic -- not black from his cosmetologist wife, skilled with make-up -- or not black from photoshopping?

I'm sorry. There have already been so many downright flagrant lies coming from the Zimmerman camp that I will not believe anything they say without convincing, authenticated proof.

I find it very strange that George did not make appearances in some public places where several trustworthy people could observe all his injuries for themselves - and later testify to the severity of the injuries. Why was he in hiding the very next day after the shooting?

Even pals Joe Oliver and Francis Taaffe finally admitted they had not seen George since before the killing. I think they finally saw him when the rest of us did -- when George was arrested. How come?

Trayvon's killing did not receive more than small blurbs of news reporting for weeks. And there certainly were no Zimmerman *death threats* early on, either. Don't you think it strange that George was in such deep hiding so fast? _ Why? _ :waitasec:

It's coming from a doctor's report. I should pull up posts from early on where everyone stated emphatically that they want to see to doctor's report as proof of injuries.

First it's the police report that wasn't accurate in saying GZ had injuries. Then it's the video that's been altered. Then the photo on the back of the head is a fake. Now a doctor's report says he had injuries.

I mean, how many times do we continue to dismiss this stuff. What if the EMT report also says he had injuries.
 
Autopsy photos are not released to the public, for good reason.



There would have been no reason for a family practice doc or PA to take photos of GZ's black eyes. That is not part of any standard care or office visit. If photos for legal purposes are needed, such as to document domestic abuse injuries, etc, a LE photographer takes those. And any health care povider worth their salt could spot "make up" enhanced injuries during exam.

Altamonte Family Physicians is a very small clinic-- one doc, 2 PA's, and office staff. Unless this clinic is co-located with other lab and radiology resources, it's unlikely they have extensive imaging capability on site. That is very expensive and cost prohibitive for the size of that practice-- all of the regulations that have to be implemented with a radiology dept, building codes and shielding, etc.

There would have been no reason, with a minor cartilage nasal fracture, to do any kind of imaging to "document" broken cartilage at the FP clinic. If the doc (or EMS) suspected serious facal injury, there would have been recommendations for immediate urgent care/ ER, and imaging to rule out Le Fort fractures, which are facial and orbital fractures. None of the medical providers thought his injuries looked serious enough to get images. A referral to an ENT is pretty much standard-- and I took that comment as a referral for the tonsil complaint as much as for the nasal fracture.

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.

Thanks was just not enough. :clap: You said what I was trying to say so much better.

I absolutely understand everyone floating theories, etc. My goodness how I have done that myself on so many cases (i.e. Casey Anthony). I guess that because I have a personal connection that I can't talk about now, I see things differently.
 
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.
 
Am I remembering correctly that MO'M waived GZ's right to a speedy trial and/or a chance to go before a judge and plead SYG for a chance to have the case thrown out? If so, I wonder why, if they had records that show so many corroberating injuries? I would have asked to plead it before a judge in the hopes that he would toss it based on SYG, and then if he didn't, prepare for a trial.
 
Am I remembering correctly that MO'M waived GZ's right to a speedy trial and/or a chance to go before a judge and plead SYG for a chance to have the case thrown out? If so, I wonder why, if they had records that show so many corroberating injuries? I would have asked to plead it before a judge in the hopes that he would toss it based on SYG, and then if he didn't, prepare for a trial.

He waived the right to a speedy trial. He did not waive his right to an SYG hearing.
 
A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.





The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month.




http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...heds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532

Was it ABC that released the photo of bleeding on the back of GZ's head?
 
Is a likely broken nose a broken nose?

nosel.jpg



Webcast: George Zimmerman Medical Records - YouTube

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!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
1,893
Total visitors
2,073

Forum statistics

Threads
589,982
Messages
17,928,629
Members
228,029
Latest member
Truthseeker158
Back
Top