Cover-Up Tattoo

Well, it's official ... My plastic surgeon is saying that with the edema I still have redoing my scars could make my leg all purty at the unacceptably high risk of loss of function. And my orthopedic surgeon's prognosis from today was that I'm unlikely to lose any more function in my leg and unlikely to permanently gain any from anything he can do. I didn't want to get any ink done before the doctors were done (because if I did you know exactly where they'd have to cut) and now that the doctors are saying that I'm getting to keep my scars ... I'm wondering ... BEFORE I run this idea by my lawyer... Does anyone think that the cost of an extensive cover-up tattoo could be forced on an insurance company as reconstructive cosmetic surgery? -M

I think the problem comes in where "reconstuctive" meets "asthetic"... The insurance will claim the tattoo is for purely asthetic reasons as it serves no "practical" function.

Nope...Its been tried and failed

Oh. That's... unfortunate. I don't really have the kind of disposable income to be throwing around for something that would basically have to cover everything from the knee down and be done by an artist willing and able to do a custom design around things like the divet and be able to do work on my big ugly skin graft. As the scars age my leg continues to get better looking but it the phrase "hideously disfiguring" is still accurate. -M