Ask A Lawyer
Talk to a Dangerous Products Lawyer for a free case review.
See if these comments resonate with you. The below are summaries of commentary on the recent NY Times article on CT Scans (July 31, 2010). I have added my thoughts in the indentations below each commentary.
Did You Suffer a CT Scan Radiation Overdose? Contact Our Lawyers Today.
Did you or a family member suffer serious injuries, hair loss, headaches, memory loss, or confusion after a CT Scan? If the answer is yes, take action now and contact Michael Monheit, Esq. at Monheit Law, a personal injury lawyer in Pennsylvania.
What Are People Saying About Cases of Excess Radiation from CT Scans?
Some one was "astonished by the lack of information" that they were given when they asked the radiologist about the dose they were expected to receive. Few can give an you answer.
MONHEIT LAW: Think about this. They are sending doses of radiation hundreds of times more powerful than an x-ray but can not actually tell you if it is 100 or 1000 times as much.
There is a "rush by hospitals and physicians to drive income" through use (or overuse) of diagnostic procedures. They make a lot of money from these tests and it is this profit motive that is the cause.
MONHEIT LAW: Think about this. Is your test necessary? Discuss this with the doctor. Find out if there are safer alternatives or if the test is required in order to treat you. .
When a hospital is claiming, as they did here, that overdoses are intentional to increase the test, and thus there was no "mistake" and no reason for an investigation, we all know that something is very wrong.
MONHEIT LAW: This is one of the most absurd aspects of what has taken place. The hospitals are claiming, if I read the NY Time article correctly, that they "gave excess radiation on purpose," and thus they claim that there is no need to look into "why?" In my opinion it is double the reason to investigate. Perhaps someone should even consider whether a criminal investigation should be opened up. If this is the truth, that they intended to over radiate and thus it is ok?? Are they crazy? It almost sounds like an intentional assault.
For someone who received x-ray after x-ray, they would always want to decide not to allow any more, only to be "convinced by a doctor or dentist" that the treatment indicates the need for the x-ray in order to answer the question they came in to get answered. "What to do?"
MONHEIT LAW: I'll tell you what I would do. I would get a second opinion. You might want to ask someone who does not make money off of delivering you the test!
"After the California overdoses became public, Huntsville [Alabama] officials reviewed their testing and determined that their use of higher doses to get clearer images was not a mistake and was, in fact, appropriate, according to the GE inspection report. Therefore, they concluded, they had no overdoses."
MONHEIT LAW: So, if I get this, if they wanted or intended to give you an overdose, then is not an overdose afterall. This reminds me of what I heard come out of Richard Nixon's mouth, that when the President breaks the law, it’s not a crime.