I got a copy of the radiologists findings this time. It sounds to me that this guy should have contacted my neur for history before giving his opinion.

"Findings:

Evidence of prior infarct involving the left temporal lobe is noted w/ postsurgical changes as attributed to a metallic artifact from a aneurysm clips. There is no evidence for mass, mass-effect, or enhancing lesion. The need for additional imaging of the brain the MRI and should be determined on a clinical bases.

Impression:
An area of chronic infarction is suspected involving the LTL. Surgical clips are seen this region. No prior studies available for comparison. An acute process is not identified."

And this was his spelling, not mine. )

It wasn't an anuerysm, but an AVM. I'll let em' slide on that.
This was taken a month after the migraine hit & left me w/ constant sharp daily headaches and no side vision of one eye for two wks. This CT was taken w/ & w/o dye.

My question is if the man had no prior studies what did he base this on? And what is the "acute process is not identified" referring to? Is it that he can't find a reason for the headaches or is he suspecting "an area of chronic infarction is suspected" for the headache, eye thing?

My Dr. wonders why I have a living will.