 |
July 4, 2018
Ambulatory EEG |
Let's make this a series.
ROUND ONE TIMELINE:
July 3, 2018
Sophie B. (Plaintiff) was "hooked up" to an ambulatory EEG in Neurologist's office. Plaintiff went home with hook-up and video camera for overnight observation of brainwave activity.
July 4, 2018
Mother/Conservator Elizabeth A. removed electrodes from Plaintiff's head and returned "black box" to Neurologist office. Because it was a holiday, Mother/Conservator had no expectation for quick reading. Mother/Conservator reports that after two decades, she has
no expectations at all.
August 23, 2018, 3:00 pm
Mother/Conservator picks up Plaintiff from adult day program and notes Plaintiff's difficulty breathing. Day program assistant reports Plaintiff had difficulty eating lunch and swallowing. Plaintiff's lips are slightly dusky in color. During entire ride home in Los Angeles traffic, Mother/Conservator pounds back of Plaintiff and encourages coughing and swallowing. Mother/Conservator contemplates bringing Plaintiff to emergency room but is persuaded by own inner compass and more than two decades of experience that no good will come of entering hospital emergency room. Instead, Mother/Conservator makes another of what has been multiple calls to Neurologist office for nearly two months regarding July 3, 2018 ambulatory EEG reading. Mother/Conservator has heated discussion with nurse at Neurologist's office demanding that she should get the EEG reading, that Plaintiff is suffering, that
something is wrong. Neurologist gets on phone, admits that
July got away from us and assures Plaintiff (whose
tiny little mother mind™ wonders if
August got away from them, too?) that EEG will be read that afternoon and that he will call Mother/Conservator that night. See Appendix A.
August 23, 2018 4:00 pm
Mother/Conservator arrives home with Plaintiff and proceeds to remedy problem of excess mucous and choking. She is helped by Caregiver and stabilizeS Plaintiff who falls asleep.
August 23, 2018 8:00 pm
Mother/Conservator receives phone call from Neurologist who expresses shock that Mother/Conservator was "right," that Plaintiff is indeed having recurrence of ESES, a rare epileptic syndrome that Mother/Conservator has suspected Plaintiff of having but has been repeatedly told by several Neurologists over two years that its recurrence is
unlikely. Mother/Conservator goes into full dissociative mode while on telephone and intelligently discusses former incidences of ESES, the treatments for said incidences and otherwise directs Neurologist to treatment modality that was successful previously. See Appendix B and Appendix C.
Dissociative mode gives way to
extreme distress and mental suffering of Mother/Conservator, attributed to decades of experience
dealing with this shit, grief over Plaintiff's ongoing struggle and suffering and anticipation of forthcoming battle to get treatment for Plaintiff. Given experience, strength, history of mindfulness meditation and love and support from immediate family members, Mother/Conservator puts on
big girl underwear, girds her loins and otherwise readies herself for the fight.
August 31, 2018
After multiple calls with Neurologist office to "check" on status of IVIG treatment (see Appendices A and B for clarification), Mother/Conservator is directed to Home Health Agency nurse who says that "this is not approved by the FDA as a treatment for epilepsy, so insurance will deny it." Mother/Conservator corrects Home Health Agency Nurse that the treatment is actually FDA-approved but is considered "off-label" for ESES treatment and that she is aware of possible denial. Mother/Conservator informs Nurse that treatment has "worked" for Plaintiff twice before and was partially covered by Insurance Company after some "wrangling." Nurse agrees to "write up" notes as dictated by Mother/Conservator about past history of treatment with IVIG. Nurse tells Mother/Conservator that she will "get back" to her after the holiday.
September 3, 2018 10:00 AM
Home Health Agency Nurse calls Mother/Conservator on telephone while mother is riding in car after dropping Plaintiff off at adult day program. Health Agency Nurse asks whether
you might want to be more comfortable at home receiving information. Mother/Conservator tells Home Health Agency Nurse that she
is fine using the Bluetooth option on her telephone in the car. Mother/Conservator wonders in her
tiny little mother mind™ whether the Health Agency Nurse thinks she might have an accident when she "receives the news." Mother/Conservator finds this humorous and assures Home Health Agency Nurse that she
can take it. Health Agency Nurse says that Insurance Company has
declined the doctor's prescribed IVIG treatment for Plaintiff for what Mother/Conservator hears as
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Health Agency Nurse states that an
appeal will begin with Neurologist
perhaps joining the appeal and personally speaking to Insurance Company chief doctor who has made this decision. Mother/Conservator listens carefully and says
indeed. She can't recall whether she said,
of course! or
is there anything I can do to expedite this process so that my daughter can get treated for her ESES? Her
tiny little mother mind™ wonders how many people are employed for this tomfoolery and thinks of some suitable imprecations, directed today toward Supreme Court Justice nominee Kavanaugh who, if confirmed, will most surely make Plaintiff's life and millions of others more miserable, particularly in regards to healthcare. Mother/Conservator doesn't share the inner workings of her
tiny little mother mind™but rather reminds Home Health Agency Nurse of Plaintiff's secondary Medi-Cal insurance. Home Health Agency Nurse reports that the Medi-Cal office worker in Home Health Agency will begin to
look into Medi-Cal coverage, now that Insurance Company has issued a DENIAL. Mother/Conservator finishes conversation pleasantly by remarking how
frustrating this all is for everyone, even though inside she is
dying, her
tiny little mother mind™ shrunken, her girded loins gaping, her big girl underpants riven.
ROUND ONE:
Sophie B vs. The Great American Healthcare System
WINNER: The Great American Healthcare System
LOSER: Sophie B.
Appendix A:
Mother/Conservator reports that Neurologist is wonderful in every respect, so while she is frustrated and upset over the delay in the reporting of the EEG results, after more than two decades of dealing
with this shit, she is cognizant of Neurologist's time constraints and being stretched too thin. She assures Court that she'd rather deal with a Nice Neurologist Who Works With Her than an Asshole Neurologist, the latter being the norm and with whom she has had plenty of experience. Mother/Conservator also assures the Court that she is well aware of The System and its shortcomings, that she has worked most of her adult life in it and to improve it, that her efforts haven't amounted to much of anything but that she has virtually
kept her daughter alive and sometimes thriving in spite of it.
Appendix B:
2005: Parents of Plaintiff (not yet Conservators because Plaintiff is a minor) are given "three choices" of treatment when Plaintiff is diagnosed with rare syndrome ESES (diagnosed only after Mother insists on hospitalization of said Plaintiff, given drastic decline in Plaintiff's physical abilities with no urgency to attend to this decline by Neurologist at time). Choices will be designated "Door Number One, Door Number Two, and Door Number Three" in keeping with Mother's dark, albeit sustaining, sense of humor.
Door Number One: High dosage steroids
Door Number Two: Valium
Door Number Three: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IvIG)
Mother chooses "Door Number Three" and treatment commences in hospital. After some "wrangling," private insurance company agrees to partially pay for ongoing treatments over the next six months in Plaintiff's home. "Wrangling" should be noted as "understatement" as Mother is left depleted and experiences considerable signs of post-traumatic stress syndrome, triggered by repeated "wrangling" in previous decade.
"Door Number Three" treatment of IvIg restores Plaintiff's brainwave activity to previous "normal" dysfunction and Plaintiff recovers.
Appendix C:
2011: Plaintiff has occurrence of ESES and is prescribed "Door Number Three" again,
given its success in treating previous incident of ESES. Insurance company denies treatment but is eventually warned down by repeated calls from Mother, one of which includes a threat to hospitalize Plaintiff so that treatment can be initiated in hospital, requiring Insurance Company to pay. Insurance company agrees to pay for treatment, treatment is administered and Plaintiff recovers.
