|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 16, 2014 14:28:03 GMT -5
Rule out does not support or document an impairment. It means it might be a consideration, but establishes nothing. NOS, like wise does not establish a particular impairment per se. "This designation abbreviated NOS can be used when the mental disorder appears to fall within the larger category but does not meet the criteria of any specific disorder within that category." I have seen ALJs remark that something was "ruled out," so can't be a problem. I agree it establishes nothing, but it also precludes nothing. Regarding NOS, it is used for coding in the DSM-IV, and I have been led to understand diagnoses with it certainly establish the presence of a medically determinable impairment. (My example is from DSM-IV, if it's changed, oops). Major Depressive Disorder could be severe, moderate, recurrent, single episode, without psychotic features, etc. Without 'further specification,' it is still a diagnosis of MDD, but not as potentially more specified. It might mean the presentation is atypical, or it might mean the clinician has insufficient information. I understand that it still identifies a psychological abnormality through acceptable clincial and diagnostic techniques, etc. I'm not sure that's what you are saying though? P.S. Does this prove my point, especially if I am wrong?
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Dec 16, 2014 14:38:46 GMT -5
Rule out does not support or document an impairment. It means it might be a consideration, but establishes nothing. NOS, like wise does not establish a particular impairment per se. "This designation abbreviated NOS can be used when the mental disorder appears to fall within the larger category but does not meet the criteria of any specific disorder within that category." I have seen ALJs remark that something was "ruled out," so can't be a problem. I agree it establishes nothing, but it also precludes nothing. Regarding NOS, it is used for coding in the DSM-IV, and I have been led to understand diagnoses with it certainly establish the presence of a medically determinable impairment. (My example is from DSM-IV, if it's changed, oops). Major Depressive Disorder could be severe, moderate, recurrent, single episode, without psychotic features, etc. Without 'further specification,' it is still a diagnosis of MDD, but not as potentially more specified. It might mean the presentation is atypical, or it might mean the clinician has insufficient information. I understand that it still identifies a psychological abnormality through acceptable clincial and diagnostic techniques, etc. I'm not sure that's what you are saying though? P.S. Does this prove my point, especially if I am wrong? This is my understanding as well.
|
|