New York Times Blasts "Independent" Medical Examinations
Posted by Alex Miller on Apr 02, 2009
An investigative report published in the New York Times entitled "Exams of Injured Workers Fuels Mutual Mistrust" demonstrates the strong bias of IME doctors working for insurance companies. It could provide excellent ideas for cross-examination of an insurance doctor in your next trial.
In the NY Times article, a New York IME doctor admits, "If you did a truly pure report, you'd be out on your ears and the insurers wouldn't pay for it. You have to give them what they want... That's the game, baby."
Trial Guides has a way to effectively deal with insurance doctors; polarize your trial. Rick Friedman's best selling book, Polarizing the Case, is the key to winning contested cases in which the insurance doctor or defense counsel implies that your client does not have the injuries claimed. Polarizing pushes your opposition out of the grey zone of implying your client is inconsistent. It forces them to admit that your client is telling the truth, or to admit that they are calling your client a liar.
The technique works. In the last two months, we've received word that two young female trial lawyers in Colorado and Hawaii have obtained verdicts in excess of $1 million by polarizing cases the defense labeled mere "soft tissue" cases. That's proof of the effectiveness of the book, which Inner Circle member Brian
Panish calls "the Bible for anyone trying cases in today's climate."