"In Chrisman’s case, Thrush failed to obtain one critical piece of evidence: a discharge paper from a hospital that stated Chrisman’s cancer was inoperable and had metastasized. The prognosis clearly qualified him for disability, even under the complex rules set by the Social Security Administration. The mistake was discovered only after Chrisman hired a lawyer."
That probably turns on "failed to obtain". The state collects and dumps case files onto the contract doctors. Is it the doctor's responsibility to search all sources of records for ones which were omitted and might be pertinent? Do privacy rules even allow this? I assume there is some waiver signed by the applicant to allow the state to request medical records, but is that then granted to the contract doctors?
It wouldn't have to be provided to the contract doctors, you'd just need a process where the doctor says "this paperwork is missing a discharge document, without that I can't make a determination" and the state/patient can get it. (I'm not a doctor so I don't know if a discharge document is something you would expect to see in a medical history)
You generally don’t get, or expect to get, every last file in a medical record. That said, a discharge summary is just that - a summary. For a cancer to be found inoperable, the record would usually include multiple imaging studies, pathology studies, reports analyzing the above, a specialist consult note, a primary internist note addressing the specialist consult note, etc. A lot would have to be missing for there to be no hint of this. Normal medical records tend to have a lot of redundance around cancer diagnosis and prognosis.
You would only know there was a discharge summary if there was a corresponding admission history and physical.
If no indication of an admission to a hospital was made, then you have no reason to expect a discharge summary. However, I would imagine the radiology reports would have included the metastases...
Not only did Thrush screw up, the article points out he was also a convicted felon. Given the preponderance of evidence marshaled by this article, you’d have to be ideologically blind to defend this systemic crime.
Sounds like the doctor screwed up.