Doctor came up with theory that my leg problem was coming from my back due to herniations on lumbar psine mri discovered BY ACCIDENT during neurological work up and congenital "cresent" shaped spine though NO BACK PAIN. But he neglected to mention that the opposite side, i.e. the asymptomatic side looks actually worse on mri with the mri bulge being bigger and an annular tear there. Having this knowledge would have directly deterred me from getting a "diagnostic" injection to "test his hypothesis." Turned out to be not diagnostic and leg mri shows that pain from leg really is coming from leg, but the "diagnosis" could have been ruled out based on facts alone, as doctor used the term "neurogenic claudication" improperly by saying that my symptoms were due to neurogenic claudication even though I have no pain on extension. As a result of the injection that was not diagnostic, it opened up a can of worms in terms of other medical problems in that I had an adverse reaction to the steroids that has not resolved 8 months post injection. Is it okay for doctors to order "diagnostic" procedures in this manner? And then when I complain, blame that patient for listening to his advise? Can I sue him for keeping back the informaiton about the mri looking worse on the opposite side that would have deterred me from undergoing "Diagnostic " procedures?
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and advice about personal injury law.