Displacement flap plastics and drainage strips
01th November 2022
Attorney-at-law and tax consultant Dr. Dr. Bernd Josef Fehn
Attorney-at-law Prof. Dr. Dr. Karsten Fehn
Specialist for oral surgery and Specialist for maxillofacial surgery Dr. Bernd G. Rehberg M.Sc.
The #Sozialgericht München - Social Court of Munich had determined on 23.06.2021 - S 38 KA 5039/20 that the numbers 2381 and 2382 #GOÄ are not compensated with the provided surgical services. After the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Dentists in Bavaria(#KZVB) had initially filed an #appeal, it finally withdrew the appeal, apparently because it recognized the hopelessness of its endeavor. If the #appeal is withdrawn after expiry of the #appeal period, the legal validity of the contested judgment comes into effect with the withdrawal.
The background of a displacement flap plastic is that it is a consecutive measure after primary #wound care. The insertion and removal of a #drainage strip - if necessary at a different site - does not jeopardize the treatment success of a displacement flap plastic. Indeed, the two measures have different objectives. While surgical measures include the usual #wound care, and displacement flap plastic is basically not performed during simple surgical measures, and serves to protect anatomical structures, also to stop #bleeding, to prevent #germ colonization of the #wound as well as uncontrolled mechanical #alteration by food debris, a #drainage strip drains #secretions from the #wound and prevents #hematomas. For example, #wound closures in the lower #jaw are rarely performed without #drainage.
Moreover, a displacement flap plastic does not have to be #saliva-proof to be billable under #GOÄ 2381 and 2382. In addition, the time required for a displacement flap plastic is not less than that for the surgical service. This circumstance is reflected in the relatively high valuation of numbers 2381 and 2382 #GOÄ.
These correct legal positions are directly and indirectly confirmed by the now legally binding ruling of the #Social Court of Munich. It is to be hoped that #billing according to numbers 2381 and 2382 #GOÄ will remain undisputed in these cases in the future.
- Update on Telemedicine
- Arbitration in sports law
- Soccer games and Twitter photos of the police
- Sports Clubs and Tax
- A Kafkaesque Reality
- Gross Error in Treatment is not equal to Gross Negligence
- Displacement flap plastics and drainage strips
- Treaty Override - It´s time for a Paradigm Change
- Doctor's offices and Commercial Tax
- Arbitrariness at the CAS?
- Impunity for assisted suicide by life partners and physicians
- Gigantomastia, mammareductionplasty and cost coverage
- Transfer effect of losses from commercial activities
- Sales tax liability for sales via eBay
- Corona and exit restrictions in Bavaria
- Employer's right of direction and time off of emergency paramedic
- Falsification of Corona vaccination certificates
- Air pollution illness and individual rights
- Patient darf sofort nach der Aufklärung in den Eingriff einwilligen – keine zwingende Bedenkzeit erforderlich All Blogs