[lbo-talk] Not scientifically proven - Lawyers pose health risk

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>--- Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> wrote:
>  > This is what happens when you refuse to consider people's motives.
>  > Bill Bartlett
>  > Bracknell Tas
>  > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1309456.htm
>  > Lawyers pose health risk: study
>  > By Nick Grimm for The World Today
<snip>
>>The study demonstrated an inverse relationship between lawyers and 
>>the recovery rates of accident victims. Dr Richard Gun, lead author 
>>of the research reported in this week's Medical Observer, has found 
>>patients who engage a lawyer after  receiving their injury are five 
>>times less likely ever to return to  work.
<snip>
>>He says they also appear to suffer more pain and for longer periods 
>>than accident victims who do not have lawyers.
<snip>
>>"I suppose some lawyers may argue that people who have more 
>>disability - who feel more pain - are the ones who are more likely 
>>to have a prolonged recovery and also the ones who are more likely 
>>to  consult a lawyer."
>>But he says the research suggests consulting a lawyer itself does 
>>have some independent effect of its own in prolonging recovery.
>
>Strictly speaking if the study is valid it suggests that PLAINTIFF"S 
>lawyers are bad for you.
>
>jks (a defense lawyer)

Here's an abstract of Dr. Richard Gun's study:

<blockquote>Risk Factors for Prolonged Disability After Whiplash 
Injury: A Prospective Study.
Spine. 30(4):386-391, February 15, 2005.
Gun, Richard Townsend MB, BS, FAFOM *; Osti, Orso Lorenzo MD, PhD, 
FRACS, FAOrthA +; O'Riordan, Alison MPhil *; Mpelasoka, Freddie PhD 
*; Eckerwall, Claes Goran Mikael MD, PhD +; Smyth, James Farrell BAO, 
FACEM, FFAEM, FRCSI, DCH, BA(Mod) ++

Abstract:
Study Design. A prospective study of 135 patients with whiplash injury.

Objectives. To identify factors predictive of prolonged disability 
following whiplash injury.

Summary of Background Data. Although patients with whiplash 
associated disorders lack demonstrable physical injury, many exhibit 
prolonged disability. Disability appears unrelated to the severity of 
the collision.

Methods. A total of 147 patients with recent whiplash injury were 
interviewed for putative risk factors for disability, and 135 were 
reinterviewed 12 months later to assess degree and duration of 
disability. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were undertaken to 
measure the association between putative risk factors and measures of 
outcome (change in Neck Pain Outcome Score [NPOS] and visual analogue 
pain score [VAPS], return to work, still requiring treatment, 
settlement of claim).

Results. The bodily pain score and role emotional scores of the Short 
Form-36 health questionnaire showed a consistent significant positive 
association with better outcomes. After adjustment for bodily pain 
score and role emotional scores, consulting a lawyer was associated 
with less improvement in NPOS (P < 0.05), but there was no 
association with change in VAPS. Consulting a lawyer was associated 
with a lesser chance of claim settlement (P < 0.01) and a greater 
chance of still having treatment (P < 0.01) after 1 year, but there 
was no significant association with a return to work. The degree of 
damage to the vehicle was not a predictor of outcome.

Conclusions. Short Form-36 scores for bodily pain and role emotional 
are useful means of identifying patients at risk of prolonged 
disability. The findings support the implementation of an insurance 
system designed to minimize litigation.

<http://www.spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/abstract.00007632-200502150-00004.htm;jsessionid=CcpsXU37jVO4vgbKSMD9iCV0eegzaPXT5iQ8KVnRiC9fAS7QUTxY!-431612848!-949856032!9001!-1></blockquote>

That means that there is a one-in-twenty chance that the alleged 
association between "consulting a lawyer" and "less improvement in 
NPOS" was wholly accidental.

Also, there is a matter of publication bias: "a tendency _on average_ 
to produce results that appear significant, because negative or near 
neutral results are almost never published" (John Brignell 
<http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~jeb/cv.htm>, "Publication Bias," 
<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/publication_bias.htm>).  It is likely 
that more than twenty studies on the same topic are conducted 
worldwide, but they don't get published because they show no 
correlation (useful to the ruling class) between "consulting a 
lawyer" and "less improvement in NPOS."

On the other hand, the association between consulting a lawyer and "a 
greater chance of still having treatment (P < 0.01) after 1 year" is 
on a much surer statistical footing, as it is documented with only a 
one-percent chance that the result was purely accidental.

I conclude that, statistically speaking, consulting a lawyer is 
likely to be a sensible course of action if your injury and pain are 
severe.  A lawyer can't make you better, but a lawyer is unlikely to 
make you improve less, and a lawyer is likely to help you fight the 
government, the insurance industry, and the employer and get 
disability benefits and medical treatment if you want them.
-- 
Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
* Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/>
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus: 
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, 
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>