Is it normal for a dermatologist not to look at your skin?

my GP refered me to the dermatologist, she looked at my skin and refered me to the dermatologist. The dermatologist looked at the referal and said that from what my GP has written in looks like chronic articaria and gave me meds, never looked at my skin, then the second dermatologist months later spoke with me and went on how the diagonosis was chronic articaria and explained it and changed my meds, and he never even looked at it, is this normal, or do I have a right to be slighlty irritated by this.|||Yes it is very typical. Dermatologists do nothing but prescribe drugs, and most of them don%26#039;t work|||As a dermatologist, I can tell you that we look at the skin. However, in those cases of chronc urticaria, there is no need to look at the skin if there are no lesions present at the time of the visit. Perhaps you didn%26#039;t have any urticaria when you were at the dermatologist%26#039;s office? Since there usually aren%26#039;t any other clues as to the cause for the urticaria that can be detected by examining the rest of the skin, there really wouldn%26#039;t be any need to examine the rest of your skin (unless the dermatologist wanted to do a full body skin exam, to look for other lesions, such as a bad mole, just to be complete).