4 ms·

I don't know. This was just a website I found that seemed to have a fairly complete listing, such as someone being repeatedly beaten with a portuguese man-o-war

I don't know. This was just a website I found that seemed to have a fairly complete listing, such as someone being repeatedly beaten with a portuguese man-o-war [1]. Some of these are rather ridiculous, but it is well categorized and thorough ridiculousness. Either that, or someone /has/ been beaten with a rather deadly critter, which sounds more like the plot element of a comedy horror film than anything. [1] http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/T51-T65/T63/T63.6-/T63.613S http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/T51-T65/T63/T...

jessaustin 11y ago
What I meant was that apparently they have enough editorial oversight to realize that it's silly to talk about water skis "overturning". However their editorial judgement apparently does not encompass the impossibility of water skis burning.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Have you checked the ICD10 entry for burning waterskis? Specifically: Do the skis have to also be in the water? http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V90-V94/V91-/V91.07XA http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V90-V94/V91-/...
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    You're using a different code! b^) Of course one might suffer burns due to contact with burning material. (Although in that case, why call out water skis but not e.g. coffee tables, which also might burn?) Upthread, however, we were talking about drowning due to burning water skis. That would indicate skis in use in water. The whole problem stems from classifying water skis as transportation, which they are not. Like wakeboards, kneeboards, towable tubes, etc. they are recreational equipment used in conjunction with powered watercraft, which are transportation.