I don't want to give away too many details of who I am.

I used to not believe that the ins. co.s read what we wrote here, now, I personally feel that yes, they do read our stuff, but they would never be able to get it admitted into court, as it is all hearsay, and is not "secure" by any means. But again, I watch what I write, all the same.

If you are in California, you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE AN ATTORNEY! Do you hear me yelling to everyone? I was an attorney (and judge) that had (still has) morals and values. I would not try to take advantage of ignorance. But I saw it happen. I tried and did stop it many times. I remember telling one adjuster: "If this girl were your granddaughter and had spilt the hot oil all over her arm, you would want her to be taken better care of than what has happened. So let's find a GREAT doctor in Beverly Hills who can bring her back to a more normal state, as she looks like Frankenstein and she is a teenage, she was working for minimum wage, and she deserves a fair break in life." Another one was a brain tumor case. No, we didn't cause the brain tumor, but it was a stressful job, so it is reasonable to believe we caused it to accelerate or exacerbate, so let's stop litigating and talk settlement under real figures, not a gun to her head.

In California, it IS a fight between your injury and how much the ins. co. can knock down the $ value. That $ value is what pays their salaries and gives them their profits. You cannot survive a work comp case in California without a judge.

I have a repetitive motion disease. Meaning: I got my nerve disease from my computer!!! It is highly unknown, not being researched because there's no money in it, and if you notice, Phil Gates philathropy group does not fight diseases in America that come from computers - carpal tunnel, neck, eye, cubital tunnel in the elbow, shoulder and back injuries - all from too many hours spent on the keyboard.

Now in California, the last law changes made all sorts of changes to what the judges could control and when. For instance, Utilization Reviews mean that your doctor can order treatment - even just a prescription - and the ins. co. can deny that, send you a Utilization Review from a doctor who has never met you who says "no", and then your doctor and your attorney must "object" to it, and then, if the ins. co. says "no", your attorney must bring an Expedited Hearing for a judge's decision, WITHOUT PAY. So the attorneys are not excited to do these...and the doctors get over-worked responding to them...and just when a judge says "YES" to the treatment, in 60 days the ins. co. can do it all again. So what is it worth to have "future medical treatment"? We need committed doctors, attorneys, and work comp patients who will fight.