Not that I am aware of!
Norm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Trageser" <vze3m2s8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:06 PM
Subject: [OM] [OT] regarding certain prosthetics
> Doctor Nadel, I apologize right up front here, but I must ask...
Considering
> your profession (of which I am a current patient) and your name, did
anyone
> ever refer to you as Dr. 'Nads'? You have to understand why I ask... I
have
> a podiatrist named Dr. Footer, and an opthomologist named Dr. Glasser.
Seems
> only natural....
>
> -Mickey
> :-)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Norman S. Nadel" <nsnadel@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3618
>
>
> > Tom:
> >
> > Way back when......
> >
> > When I first started practicing urology it was the pre-silicone era. If
I
> > had to remove a testicle for cancer or infection I was occasionally
asked
> to
> > replace it with a prosthesis.
> > There were none available at the time so guess what I used? Yup .. I
> opened
> > up the "eye" tray and picked whatever one appeared to be the best size.
> > These never felt good to the touch but "looked" OK to the casual
observer.
> >
> > Norm
> >
> > Norman S. Nadel, M.D.
> > Retired, Chief Urology
> > Kaiser
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Thomas A Simmons" <tasimmons@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:40 AM
> > Subject: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3618
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Grrrrrrrrrrr YES! Sure, it helps me look better (pun intended).
> > > At a cost roughly equal to a LNIB 180 F2 each, and this is my 5th.
> > >
> > > B*^&%#$s!!!!!
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:14:20 -0700
> > > From: "Timpe, Jim" <Jim.Timpe@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: RE: [OM] Digital photography article
> > >
> > > Tom... my wife just had a new eye made this past summer. She's had a
> > > prosthesis since she was 10 months old. What has perpetually
infuriated
> > me
> > > is the insurance companies' insistence each time a new eye is
> necessitated
> > > to deem it a 'cosmetic' prosthesis, and therefore not medically
required
> > > (i.e. covered). Curious if you've had similar experiences...
> > >
> > > - -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas A Simmons
> > >
> > > I wear an interocular prosthetic, otherwise known as a glass eye.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> >
> >
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|