Personal injury DCs can use the device to secure practices by providing objective "muscle guarding" data, while also providing "unimpeachable evidence" for their cases.

In the field of chiropractic, ground-breaking products that have the potential to transform the industry are few and far between. Those perceptions have shifted in the personal injury arena in recent years, thanks to the increasing popularity of Dynamic Surface Electromyography, which personal injury attorneys are referring to as "the lie detector for back pain."It measures both range ofpcr machine and "muscle guarding" duringphysiotherapy machine, eliciting a pain response that can be used to determine whether or not there is soft tissue injury in the body.

According to designer David Marcarian, who gained expertise in electrophysiology while working at NASA's Ames Research Center, "I was getting calls from chiropractors with worker's compensation and personal injury (PI) practices that started the same way every time."In other words, "the attorney has stated that they will not work with me until I obtain a DynaROM, period."

'Muscles are incapable of lying' in court.

When you measure muscle guarding through range of motion, the severity of soft tissue injuries and symptoms is magnified. Body's natural defense against pain while inpcr testing machine is muscle guarding, which can be defined as follows:

Markarian explains that his is a functional test in which there is."An example of how I present it is, 'Does it hurt when you're standing or when you're bending over to pick something up?'The muscles always go into spasm when you are about to bend over, no matter what you do. For example, sEMG through motion is functional and elicits the abnormal muscle guarding response, as opposed to static tests such as MRI, CT, or endpoint ROM."

In personal injury cases, the device has resulted in millions of dollars in compensation being awarded, and it has become the gold standard for personal injury attorneys who collaborate with chiropractors. This was demonstrated in Merritt vs. the Florida Department of Health (DOH), which was one of the device's first significant victories.

It is a landmark case because the State of Florida was joined by 300 insurance companies, and one of the largest insurance companies purchased my law firm a couple of months before the trial, creating a conflict of interest, according to Marcarian. They knew that if a statute were to be passed approving this tool for evaluating soft tissue injury, their defense that soft tissue injury was purely subjective would be destroyed. This meant that we had to pay out on soft tissue claims in a way that we had never done before. According to my understanding, their true goal was to prevent chiropractors from seeing PI patients, as they did the same year they prohibited massage therapists from seeing PI patients as well.

It was "extremely unlikely" that he would win when he was representing himself and one main attorney against 300 insurers, 75 attorneys, pcr machine price and nine expert witnesses, he explained."We were victorious all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, which we did twice. My attorney explained that the situation was straightforward: "We told the truth, and they did not."

After the case was settled, the device was incorporated into the American Medical Association's medical text on Range of Motion Assessment, and the state of Florida approved 100% CPT code reimbursement (96002 and 96004) for personal injury protection in the state of Florida, as well as reimbursement throughout the rest of the country.

A lack of objective proof, according to personal injury attorney Mike Maxwell, is a major reason why juries are reluctant to award money in personal injury cases. "When a personal injury lawsuit is founded on the testimony of the very person who stands to benefit from it," Maxwell said."When a plaintiff attorney brings in the DynaROM, this machine that has the potential to provide the Holy Grail, the objective finding, they are completely at a loss for what to do. When compared to imaging studies such as MRI, CT scans, or endpoint ROM, which are frequently normal in soft tissue cases, it completely eliminates the lack of objective findings. Consequently, that is who I choose to refer my personal injury clients to.

With muscle guarding proof, you can achieve courting success.

Marcarian has witnessed his fair share of dramatic court cases in which his muscle-guarding technology has been victorious.

According to him, one of the cases resulted in the largest personal injury award in the history of that county, with a $650,000 settlement for soft tissue injuries. When an attorney in Seattle noticed that all of the cases were being settled for large sums of money, he contacted the police. One of them was offered zero dollars, and they eventually settled the case for approximately $260,000 after my deposition. The case does not get recorded as a loss for the insurance defense attorneys if they do not take the case to a jury trial. Rather than going through a lengthy jury trial process, the only way to prevent the spread of the DynaROM was through large out-of-court settlements, such as the case of Youngblood vs. State Farm, in which a young attorney wanted to put it to the test in court.