News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257268
Next 10
Followers 843
Posts 122806
Boards Moderated 10
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: srsmgja post# 77082

Friday, 05/01/2009 11:58:41 PM

Friday, May 01, 2009 11:58:41 PM

Post# of 257268

However, the ONLY reason any physician would prescribe Lumigan for cosmesis would be to circumvent insurance policy reimbursement guidelines regarding covered and non-covered medical indications. That is not malpractice, it is insurance fraud.

In my most recent post, I was clearly talking about a hypothetical self-pay patient, so we can set aside the insurance-related issues since the patient in question doesn’t have any.

I’m surprised you assume that, just because Lumigan and Latisse are the same chemical entity, a judge and jury in a malpractice case stemming from a severe adverse reaction to Lumigan use on eyelashes would not be swayed by the fact that Lumigan is an unapproved product for such use. At the very least, the off-label use would give the plaintiff’s lawyer an opening to paint the doctor as careless and arrogant for unnecessarily flouting the FDA label.

You may know a lot about medicine, but it sounds as though you haven’t spent much time with lawyers. I suppose that’s a good thing :- )


“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today