Nine in one

Shazam.

Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted nine other peer review prepared by Dr. Cohen with respect to other Eligible Injured Parties. The wording of the discussion section of each of those nine peer reviews is almost word for word identical with the discussion in the peer review prepared in connection with this Injured Party.

Kapow.

Dr. Cohen was asked to comment about the medical necessity of the lower V-sNCT testing of December 9, 2009. He wrote a minimal and inadequate synopsis of the facts, which did not show any meaningful analysis. His conclusion is in the “discussion” portion of his peer. This “discussion” section does not relate the unique medical findings and symptoms of this individual injured person to the testing or to the medical rationales for the testing. Instead, Dr. Cohen inserted his formulaic boilerplate statement against the testing. His “discussion” and conclusion 4 is identical, word for word, to peers he wrote in other cases involving this testing (see AAA Case Nos. 412009026060, 412009026219, 412009026219, 412009026191, 412009026375). No matter the unique clinical findings, complaints and test results for the injured person, the conclusion and discussion is the same in every single case. The use of such a boilerplate statement, without analyzing the facts unique to the specific injured person, indicates that a button was pushed to accomplish a pre determined result. The peer review does not show that the relevant medical facts were analysed fully and in relation to applicable medical rationales. At a minimum his factual analysis should be as detailed as the above factual analysis written by this layperson.