Jump to content
Thai Visa Forum

Mum's 'relief' as £60k raised to bring injured daughter home from Thailand after horrific accident


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply
13 hours ago, Hummin said:

Then I assume you have seen your share of stupidity in Thailand by back packers, and other visitors. You still claim if at bar, jumping in to first and best swimmingpool head first drunk, still qualify to get full payment from your insurance company? 

 

It is the same if you claim your insurance after drunk driving if you ask me. 

She should pay the insurance company a reimbursement for wasting their time investigating for her reckless act...

Link to post
Share on other sites

An addition to my earlier post. I still can't find anything that says that damage to the C5,6 or 7 vertebrae will cause paralysis.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Fracture treatment
Treatment for the vertebral fracture will typically include non-surgical care, such as rest, pain medication, use of heat or ice for local pain, and slow return to mobility. Surgery may also be advisable. The two most common types of surgery for this type of fracture are vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Both types of surgery can help the fracture heal.

Vertebroplasty. This minimally invasive treatment is designed to help reduce or eliminate pain caused by a fractured vertebra and stabilize the bone. Low viscosity cement is injected directly into the collapsed vertebral body under high pressure, with the goal of stabilizing the fracture and relieving the associated back pain.

Kyphoplasty. Similar to vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty is a minimally invasive procedure designed to reduce or stop the pain caused by a spinal fracture, to stabilize the bone, and to restore some or all of the lost vertebral body height due to the compression fracture.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rally123 said:

An addition to my earlier post. I still can't find anything that says that damage to the C5,6 or 7 vertebrae will cause paralysis.

 

 

 

 

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

So you are a surgeon? No just somebody prattling on about something you have no idea about.

So you are saying my damaged 4th 5th vertebrae, are not related to my paralysis, BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, colinneil said:

So you are a surgeon? No just somebody prattling on about something you have no idea about.

 

And you know that for sure???? Nah, I don't think so. Now go follow someone else. I didn't notice 'Sheryl' disproving my 'diagnosis'/ 'prognosis' 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rally123 said:

And you know that for sure???? Nah, I don't think so. Now go follow someone else. I didn't notice 'Sheryl' disproving my 'diagnosis'. 

I had ACDF surgery, in and operated on, within 8 days in a Government hospital.

The spinal specialist advised me that had I left it any later I would have been paralysed.

I think he knows quite a bit more about the cervical spine than you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An addition to my earlier post. I still can't find anything that says that damage to the C5,6 or 7 vertebrae will cause paralysis.  

 

 

 

 

Fracture treatment

Treatment for the vertebral fracture will typically include non-surgical care, such as rest, pain medication, use of heat or ice for local pain, and slow return to mobility. Surgery may also be advisable. The two most common types of surgery for this type of fracture are vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Both types of surgery can help the fracture heal.

Vertebroplasty. This minimally invasive treatment is designed to help reduce or eliminate pain caused by a fractured vertebra and stabilize the bone. Low viscosity cement is injected directly into the collapsed vertebral body under high pressure, with the goal of stabilizing the fracture and relieving the associated back pain. Kyphoplasty. Similar to vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty is a minimally invasive procedure designed to reduce or stop the pain caused by a spinal fracture, to stabilize the bone, and to restore some or all of the lost vertebral body height due to the compression fracture.

 

 

 It is not the damage to the vertebra per se that does it but associated damage to the spinal cord. If the spinal cird is severed then patalysis is immediate and, at that level, will involve arms and legs (quadriplegia).

 

If the cord is not severed it may still be badly compressed by bone fragments and associated swellling. In this case prompt medical intervention may succeed in preventing total paralysis. Hopefully what occurred in her case. However there will usually have been some nerve damage that takes many months to resolve, or even be permanent.

 

Your comments re Colin -- who lost the use of his legs due to a spinal injury - are insensitive in the extreme.

 

 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 It is not the damage to the vertebra per se that does it but associated damage to the spinal cord. If the spinal cird is severed then patalysis is immediate and, at that level, will involve arms and legs (quadriplegia).

 

If the cord is not severed it may still be badly compressed by bone fragments and associated swellling. In this case prompt medical intervention may succeed in preventing total paralysis. Hopefully what occurred in her case. However there will usually have been some nerve damage that takes many months to resolve, or even be permanent.

 

Your comments re Colin -- who lost the use of his legs due to a spinal injury - are insensitive in the extreme.

 

 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

'comments re Colin -- who lost the use of his legs due to a spinal injury - are insensitive in the extreme.'

 

Too often that applies to any poor soul who by accident or otherwise happens to find themselves in a bad situation, and then by even worse misfortune also discovers their story has appeared on TV forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 It is not the damage to the vertebra per se that does it but associated damage to the spinal cord. If the spinal cird is severed then patalysis is immediate and, at that level, will involve arms and legs (quadriplegia).

If that was the case with this woman then she'd be wearing a full neck brace, see picture. Not a soft collar you'd put on someone with a stiff neck. Plus she's practically sitting up. It's all wrong.

 

Image result for neck brace for severed spinal cord                                             0_sophie-wilson.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thaiwrath said:

I think he knows quite a bit more about the cervical spine than you do.

So you know me do you? What has ADCF surgery got to do in this case. She never went through it. I think the problem in this case is that, having read the small print of the insurers, she had an accident and failed to get the consent of the insurers before booking into her private hospital. The insurers have the right to select the hospital. Similar to your car insurers defining which garage you get your car repaired at. This case really has nothing to do the injury but the abuse of selecting an hospital before contacting her insurers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rally123 said:

If that was the case with this woman then she'd be wearing a full neck brace, see picture. Not a soft collar you'd put on someone with a stiff neck. Plus she's practically sitting up. It's all wrong.

 

Image result for neck brace for severed spinal cord                                             0_sophie-wilson.jpg

No. That collar is applied  only initially at scene of injury to avoid any further trauma in the course of moving the patient. It does not remain on permanently. .

 

Thee picture is taken some time after the injury.

 

Obviously, her spinal cord was nor completely severed as it states she has some sensation. It also states there is some limitation so one can infer some degree of nerve damage, hopefully temporary.

 

What on earth is the point you are trying to make?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rally123 said:

So you know me do you? What has ADCF surgery got to do in this case. She never went through it. I think the problem in this case is that, having read the small print of the insurers, she had an accident and failed to get the consent of the insurers before booking into her private hospital. The insurers have the right to select the hospital. Similar to your car insurers defining which garage you get your car repaired at. This case really has nothing to do the injury but the abuse of selecting an hospital before contacting her insurers.

The stated issue is that the insurer considers the injury to be the result of a reckless act. Nothing to do with which hospital she was treated in or when the company was notified of the hospitalization, which took place under emergency conditions.

 

In an emergency the requirement for pre-authorization does not apply, one informs the insurance company as soon as possible afterwards. In no insurance policy that I have ever read is a person in a life or death situation, and/or unconscious, not allowed to receive immediate care under the policy.

 

Most insurance policies do not give the insurer the right to select the hospital, that is very unusual. Rather they set limits on reimbursement by type of expense. 

 

Read the links. None of these things you mention are the issue. The issue is that she dove into a (apparently shallow, or shallow end of) pool of some sort at a bar at night. The insurance company's position is that this was a reckless act and thus the consequences are excluded from coverage. The family has appealed that, and the Financial Ombudsman's  office will make a final determination on that. Which hospital has got nothing whatsoever to do with it (and the range of choice in that part of Thailand is very limited, especially for an injury of this type).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The family think it is the insurance fault no pay out.she did the jumping drunk.but the family think everyone should help in donating.they should remortgage the house or anything else instead of begging.thks everyone for donating saves us the hassle of the remortgage.hope they see this thread and see what people think

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2018 at 2:02 PM, ukrules said:

Good, I hope they follow up with a complaint to the ombudsman about the insurance company here.

 

And when the Ombudsman finds in their favour they will get another £60k...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bristolgeoff said:

The family think it is the insurance fault no pay out.she did the jumping drunk.but the family think everyone should help in donating.they should remortgage the house or anything else instead of begging.thks everyone for donating saves us the hassle of the remortgage.hope they see this thread and see what people think

Im not sure the family blaimed the insurance company? Can you confirm they did, and not a news clip where media is the one who put words in their mouth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

The stated issue is that the insurer considers the injury to be the result of a reckless act. Nothing to do with which hospital she was treated in or when the company was notified of the hospitalization, which took place under emergency conditions.

 

In an emergency the requirement for pre-authorization does not apply, one informs the insurance company as soon as possible afterwards. In no insurance policy that I have ever read is a person in a life or death situation, and/or unconscious, not allowed to receive immediate care under the policy.

 

Most insurance policies do not give the insurer the right to select the hospital, that is very unusual. Rather they set limits on reimbursement by type of expense. 

 

 

May I raise an issue on your final sentence which I hope is not seen as off topic? However if so perhaps it can be shifted to a more appropriate place

 

Before major - but not emergency treatment of the type under discussion - treatment in Thailand, one is of course required to consult with one's insurance company. Increasingly and certainly with my policy, there are insurance company agents in Thailand who steer customers to preferred hospitals with whom companies have an arrangement (they are keen on St Louis Hospital for instance) or negotiate prices with hospitals with whom they have not. As you say there are limits on reimbursement and my understanding is that insurance companies will not insist on preferred hospitals being used if a non-preferred hospital is the customer's choice and costs fall within specified limits.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am referring to a well known and respected UK company which I have used very satisfactorily for many years.

 

My concern is that in Bangkok quite a bit of homework needs to be done to find the best specialist. This is the experience of my Thai friends and I think also the advice you have given in this forum. Though I have confidence in my insurance company I'm not totally confident it would be focused on the best specialist rather than the hospital they would prefer to deal with.I'm wondering what in the eventuality of a major illness what would be the best way to manage this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply insist on your right to be treated in the hospital of your choice. Unless you have one of the very few policies that limit choice of hospitals, you can absolutely do this.

 

Of course, if the hospital in question charges more than your insurance covers, you may be stuck with the excess. In that case an insurance co willing to negotiate with the hospital over the price is an advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...