Bias In The So Called “Independent Medical Examination”

For over twenty years, we have handled personal injury claims and workers compensation claims of all types. Anyone who has done the same has witnessed the perversion of our system of justice by medical doctors who are performing so called “independent medical exams” for insurance companies and their lawyers. It has always amazed us that medical doctors who spent years of hard work to be able to exercise their own independent judgment in diagnosing and treating injured or sick people are so ready, willing and able to misrepresent, if not lie about either an injured persons condition or the cause thereof, in order to keep the insurance company dollars coming. People who are involved in litigation know who these doctors are because they show up over and over again. There is big money in these evaluations for orthopedic surgeons, neurologist, neurosurgeons and others who are in the business of performing them.
Unfortunately, jurors are often unaware of the extent to which these physicians are used by the insurance industry and unaware of their bias. Insurance defense lawyers portray these doctors as “objective” and “independent”. Recently, a well known IME doctor admitted that he had done over 1500 independent medical examinations since 1991. He gives approximately 40 depositions a year, testifies for the defense 95% of the time and has made over $1.2 million doing this in the last eight years. In the trial of personal injury cases, including workers compensation cases, a significant issue a judge or jury must evaluate is whether the testimony of theses defense experts is objective and/or whether the doctors have a hidden bias, to wit: a propensity and motive to testify favorably to the parties hiring their alleged professional services. In Lancaster v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, 232 Ga. App. 805, 502 S.E.2nd 752 (1998), Justice Blackburn wrote:
I write separately to point out a systemic problem in the general use of “independent” experts in the litigation process. This problem, while not limited thereto, is greatest where insurance companies use “independent” medical experts’ opinions to deny or limit payment of claims. The inherent weakness of this process is that the insurance company which controls the flow of business to “independent” medical services providers has a financial interest in the negative finding of such provider … Where companies are established for the sole purpose of providing or selecting medical experts for insurance companies, either individually or as an industry, they can by no means be deemed to be independent.
Lawyers representing injured workers should dig deep to explore and expose this bias on the part of these paid “experts” who are harming innocent victims of accidents and subverting justice for our clients.