The Defense Medical Examination in Personal Injury Cases

If you are pursuing a personal injury case, chances are you will be asked to attend what the insurance company calls an “independent medical examination” (IME). Despite the name, there is nothing “independent” about it. These exams are arranged and paid for by the defense, and the physician conducting them is not your doctor, does not treat you, and is not there to help you recover. Instead, the purpose is to generate testimony that minimizes your injuries and undermines your case.

Understanding the role of the defense medical examination—its flaws, common arguments, and the most effective ways to counter them—is essential to leveling the playing field.

The Flaws and Biases of Defense Medical Examinations

Defense medical exams are inherently adversarial. The physician is typically chosen from a short list of doctors who frequently perform evaluations for insurance companies and defense firms. These physicians are compensated handsomely for their reports and testimony, and the majority of their income often comes from defense work. This creates an obvious bias: the more opinions they provide that benefit the defense, the more likely they are to continue receiving lucrative assignments.

Another flaw lies in the nature of the exam itself. Unlike your treating physician, who sees you regularly and tracks your recovery over time, the defense doctor usually meets you once, for a short exam, and then claims to have enough information to render sweeping opinions. They may ignore or downplay objective imaging results, dismiss your reports of pain as “subjective,” and speculate that you should have recovered long ago.

The Expected Defense Arguments

The defense medical examiner will often assert that your injuries are mild, temporary, or unrelated to the accident. They may suggest that any ongoing symptoms are exaggerated, pre-existing, or due to “degenerative changes” that come naturally with age. They may also argue that further treatment is unnecessary or that you reached maximum medical improvement earlier than your treating providers have determined.

In some cases, the examiner may concede that the accident caused a minor injury but insist that it resolved within a short time frame, even if your actual course of treatment and daily experience show otherwise. The ultimate goal is to provide the defense with testimony that reduces the value of your claim by limiting both liability and damages.

The Most Effective Rebuttals

The strongest way to counter a defense medical examination is through the credibility of your treating physicians. Unlike the hired defense expert, your doctors have an ongoing relationship with you, have followed your progress over time, and have provided actual treatment. Their testimony about your symptoms, imaging results, treatment plan, and prognosis carries far more weight than a one-time exam conducted for litigation purposes.

Equally important is highlighting the examiner’s financial relationship with the defense. Juries and judges often view with skepticism a physician who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year testifying almost exclusively for insurance companies. Demonstrating this pattern of bias can significantly undercut the credibility of the defense medical examiner.

Finally, your own testimony matters. Being consistent and forthright about your symptoms, your limitations, and the impact of the injury on your life makes it harder for a defense doctor to paint your experience as exaggerated or unfounded. When the defense doctor’s opinions conflict with the lived reality of your condition and the detailed records of your treating physicians, their testimony often loses its force.

CONTACT PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES TODAY

If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto accident, contact Phillips & Associates at (818) 348-9515 for a free consultation today. You will immediately be put in touch with John Phillips or Patrick DiFilippo, who can help determine whether you have a case and advise you on the best course of action moving forward.