[ Home | Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Rich Wittman
Date: 09 Dec 2005
Time: 08:48:03 -0800
Remote Name: 63.192.208.42
This case involves a patient with a 'refusal to test' ruling after a negative shy bladder exam by a urologist on the day following urine drug testing. The patient, upset by the limited physical examination performed by the urologist, sought a 2nd opinion. Two months later the patient returned with a letter from a 2nd urologist documenting a diagnosis of paruresis -- it is uncertain if this diagnosis was based upon history alone or if studies were performed.
In the setting of conflicting urologic opinions, and considering the initial 'refusal to test' ruling, what would your next step entail when asked by the workplace to render an opinion? Thanks again.