Defence Doctors - Nothing On The Line
November 3, 2008
I am sick and tired of receiving reports from hired defence experts that, after five or ten minutes examining my client, provide a lengthy written report that contradicts what treating doctors have concluded over the course of many months and often years of dealing with the injuries caused by an accident.
Unfortunately, these doctors put nothing on the line except their invoices. Because this is the "litigation" process, the doctors are not exposed to professional negligence claims simply by providing an opinion. At the same time they typicall totally disregard the fact that treating doctors have seen the patient regularly, have a lengthy history with that patient, and know the injuries and disabilities to be true.
Now I don't want to disparage all expert witnesses. There are many that provide their unbiased opinions. I have retained experts in the past that questioned the legitimacy of my clients. In those cases I do some more investigation and if I don't have confidence that the plaintiff's injuries are legitimate I will not take the case forward. I know that there are experts for insurance companies that will tell the insurance companies that the plaintiff is legitimate. These are not the experts I am writing about.
I am writing about the professional expert that might be making $500,000.00 and often more, annually, writing reports for insurance companies. I am talking about experts that write virtually the same report for all plaintiffs.
There are a few defence doctors used in Ontario, Canada, where I practice, that are notorious for this. In fact, there are some that I could almost write their reports before they ever see the client. They have no risks professionally because they are not seeing my client as a patient. If their opinion is wrong, there is no recourse to the client despite the fact it might cost them some compensation. From my perspective these doctors add absolutely nothing positive to the litigation process. They only cause serious harm. Because they are used so often, they often come across as good witnesses. They have more experience in the courtroom than the treating doctors. In fact, they often have more experience in the courtroom than the lawyers that are trying the case.
As a side note, I am not blind to the fact that there may well be doctors that will do the same for plaintiffs. Because I do not do defence work and because I try not to use such doctors, I don't have much experience with that side of the equation.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. I do know that the insurance companies that use such doctors do a tremendous disservice to justice. They also perpetuate the problem, lengthen the litigation and increase the costs. I say this because, at least in my situation, when I receive a defence report from such a doctor, I ignore it from the perspective of the value of the opinion, and look strictly at the best manner to counter that evidence at the trial. Reports from those doctors do not get me to advise my clients to settle for less money.
Reports from legitimate experts, with what I see as unbiased opinions can and do affect the way I see my case and often do assist in leading to a settlement. Injury Alliance will help level the playing field for injured people in the legal process, in addition to helping them maximize their recovery from the medical perspective.
Please tell us what you think.
**Note: Blog postings are subject to a screening process, they may not appear right away.**