And he lifted his arms to the sky and declared: you are healed!
If you are walking in a marked crosswalk with a pedestrian light on. With friends. And a guy in a Honda is talking on his cell and decides to turn left. And mows you down. The car strikes you. You land on top of the hood and then fall down and strike the pavement. And you are taken by ambulance to the hospital. And end up bruised and hurting all over. Then you my dear friend need to see Dr. Sean Ghidella. Because according to him - you will be healed and back to normal within three months. Boom. Just like that.
That's what he testifies to today in a binding insurance arbitration proceeding. Under oath.
Now there is an exception. If you have a pre-existing susceptibility to injury the three month rule won't always apply. But never fear. It is highly doubtful you are alive if you suffer from the kind of pre-existing condition that Dr. G is talking about.
In this case, the 34 year old woman had scoliosis which is an abnormal curvature of the spine. Some of us develop or are born with it. We can be a bit out of whack because of it. She also was having some spine discomfort due to a situation at work in the months leading up to being hit. But was any of that a pre-condition that could have made it harder for her to heal. No way.
Dr. G says - if you were on top of a building and fell eight (8) stories and had orthopedic injuries and survived - that would be a preexisting condition.
So the good news is the woman did not fall eight (8) stories before being hit by the car. She should have healed in three months.
You know what a defense attorney does with that kind of testimony. Um hum. Attacks the woman's credibility. All of her injuries (after the magic three months) are due to something else.
Moral of the story: if you are hit by a car and haven't fallen eight (8) stories before hand, then go see Dr. G. He will heal you in three months. Boom. Just like that.
Postscript: The Arbitrator - Scott Holte - did not have quite as much faith in Dr. G as the defense. In ruling for the plaintiff here is in part - what he said: I do not find Dr. Ghidella's report and testimony on the causation issue is persuasive. Specifically I don't find that Dr. Ghidella's opinions have a sufficient factual foundation...