If a doctor made a poor diagnosis which caused you to have to seek another doctor (I am not talking about second opinions for treatment) do you think you should have to pay the first doctor?

For instance someone I know had a fairly extensive case of warts on their feet and in their cuticles on their fingers, I told him to go to the doctor, it did not look like you could just go to the corner drug store and buy meds off the counter to treat it. The patient was prescribed Lotrimin, a yeast medication. That is ridiculous! I told them to go to a pediatrist, which he did a couple of days later, and received proper diagnosis and treatment. The problem was resolved. I am not a doctor, I have never seen warts like that before, I also have never had athletes foot, but I know athletes foot is basically an irritation and that was not what was presented. I really think that is inexcusable. It is such a minor thing that it is not like he is going to sue someone over it, but he had spent money on the appointment and the medication, and his health insurance spent money on both things also.

Not to mention that this is not trying to interpret a patients description of pain or symptoms, this is right there for the doctor to observe, or even if he is unsure I assume you can send it to a lab?

In many other industries we would not pay, or at least not pay in full, for bad or incomplete service.