![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY |
||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, November 25, 2009Is the "Independent" Medical Exam Dead?
For many years personal injury attorneys fought back against the concept of "independent" medical exams. We didn't argue that defendants weren't entitled to have a doctor evaluate our clients injuries. Rather, we objected to the absurd concept that a doctor hired by one side to do a medical-legal exam is "independent."
And now that unfortunate label seems to be fading into oblivion. In Rowe v. Wahnow, decided last week by a New York appellate court, plaintiff's auto case was tossed out based on the "IME" reports of the defendant's doctors. But in dissent comes Justice Douglas McKeon, ripping into the concept that such "IME" reports are actually independent. And he does so with support from New York's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman: ...the "independent" prong of the term, has long been winked at by the bench and bar. Few consider the physical examination conducted for purposes of litigation as independent; indeed, one court has described it as part of the "adversarial process" (Bazakos v Lewis, rev'd on other grounds) with Chief Judge Lippman forthrightly observing that "[t]hese exams, far from being independent in any ordinary sense of the word, are paid for and frequently controlled in their scope and conduct by legal adversaries of the examinee (id. at 6 [Lippman, Ch. J., dissenting).When I was younger I would routinely run my pen through those parts of the pre-printed Preliminary Conference Orders that had the word "independent." Now the courts were simply looking for dates on when the exams would be done, and when reports would be furnished, but I'd belly-ache about the language. More than a few opposing lawyers and judges would look at me like I was from Mars. In recent years, however, I get an understanding nod. Enough of us have raised the issue -- and this language is important because we don't want judges referring to these things as "independent" when a jury is sitting in the box -- that the language is now being challenged in the highest halls of justice. So let me be the first to proclaim that the "independent" medical exam is dead. Sure, it may still take a few years to see it buried altogether, but make no mistake about it, it is on an irreversible course to the trash heap of litigation history. Labels: Personal Injury
Comments:
I think you're off base here and reading much too much into the dissent. It seems to me that the dissenter's biggest problem was the use of the No-Fault IME as opposed to a liability IME.
A doctor is a doctor is a doctor and if a doctor offered an opinion on the plaintiff's condition, those opinions need and should be taken into consideration. Now, if 3 IME's were done by the same doctor and only one was brought forward by the defendant, blame the plaintiff attorney's incompetence for not submitting the other reports. I think there needs to be a better process put in place that is fair to both plaintiff and defendant but I don't see the "independent" part disappearing any time soon.
IMEs are adversarial, even in no-fault. Same with peer-reviews. Especially peer-reviews. Appellate Term decisions allow defendants to have one doctor testify as to another's peer-review. I've had those re-peers testify that they agreed to testify, before reviewing any medical records. One in particular, agreed to testify the night before the trial, and never reviewed the records until a few hours before the trial.
No-Fault IME doctors understand that unless they cut off benefits, they don't get to testify. And of course, if they don't testify, they get paid a pittance. The going rate for a no-fault IME is far less than you'd think. Everyone should stop with the winking. Sorry for the rant. This is my second of the day. Should have had more coffee, I guess.
A doctor is a doctor is a doctor and if a doctor offered an opinion on the plaintiff's condition, those opinions need and should be taken into consideration.
Post a Comment
I think that we can agree that a doctor that finds 80% of the people s/he examines for an insurance company are badly injured is less likely to get as much future business than one that finds only 20% of the people injured. Claiming that a "A doctor is a doctor is a doctor" is just turning a blind eye to what is going on. Links to this post: << Home
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way. Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained. Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice. Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.
|
Subscribe by Email
|
|||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
An Affiliate of the Law.com Network
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
Copyright © 2007 Eric Turkewitz & The Turkewitz Law Firm
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog:
An attorney's blog on New York personal injury law,
medical malpractice, the civil justice system
and cases of interest.
|
|
Design by Lidija Tomas Design / Studio 4D |