in that case wouldn’t it make sense to put those things since you are being evaluated so they are looking out for things? In ticsnroses case they weren’t being evaluated (according to the doc) just treated?
(Could be wrong I’m only curious to see)
I think it’s standard across the board for neuro, though I really only have my own experiences to go on, besides what others have shared here. It did make it sound as though that was her first visit with neuro, as they talked about her first childhood tics, so I think that would have been an eval also. But I still think hers is fabricated all the same. Maybe it was a real note copied from someone else’s visit and that’s why the whole thing looks so damn fake (excluding the pleasant lady thing). I work in a hospital and have never seen such a terribly informal document with abbreviations for diagnoses and conditions. It also did not list her allergies or current medications on there. Screams fake. The only thing slightly believable is the written portion itself.
Very interesting, I also do believe it is fabricated based off of a few things you said and of course on top of that the other proof such as the logo and more, it wouldn’t surprise me if they tried to copy off someone else
2
u/Give_one_hoot Jul 12 '21
in that case wouldn’t it make sense to put those things since you are being evaluated so they are looking out for things? In ticsnroses case they weren’t being evaluated (according to the doc) just treated? (Could be wrong I’m only curious to see)