By 
Independent medical examinations are a standard component of personal injury litigation that significantly influences case outcomes. Despite the name, IMEs are requested and paid for by the defense or the defendant’s insurance carrier, creating an inherent tension between the stated purpose of independent evaluation and the financial incentives of the examining physician. Data on IME practices, outcomes, and their effect on claim values provides important context for understanding this frequently contested aspect of personal injury cases.
Frequency and Timing
Defense-requested IMEs are conducted in approximately 45% of litigated personal injury cases (Journal of Forensic Sciences). The frequency increases with claim value, with IMEs requested in over 80% of cases where claimed damages exceed $100,000. IMEs are typically scheduled after the plaintiff’s medical treatment has plateaued, allowing the defense examiner to evaluate the claimant’s condition and opine on whether ongoing symptoms are causally related to the accident.
The timing of the IME can itself influence outcomes. Examinations conducted during periods when the claimant is experiencing symptom improvement may produce reports that understate the overall severity and duration of the injury. Plaintiff attorneys frequently challenge IME timing and may request that the court require supplemental examinations at later dates (Avian Law Group).
Examiner Bias and Opinion Patterns
Examination of the opinions (Journal of Forensic Sciences) (American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) of physicians who conduct high volumes of defense IMEs and found that these examiners conclude that the accident did not cause the claimed injuries in 72% of their examinations. By comparison, treating physicians attribute the injuries to the accident in approximately 90% of cases where they provide causation opinions.
This disparity reflects the selection dynamics of the IME market. Physicians whose opinions consistently favor the defense receive more referrals from insurance carriers and defense firms, creating a financial incentive that may influence clinical conclusions. While this observation does not invalidate individual IME opinions, it provides context for evaluating the reliability of IME findings.
Impact on Settlement Values
IME reports that dispute injury causation or severity reduce settlement values measurably (Defense Research Institute). Claims where the IME report supports the defense position on causation settle for an average of 28% less than comparable claims without an adverse IME finding. When the IME report disputes both causation and injury severity, the reduction exceeds 40%.
However, IME reports are not dispositive. Claimants can challenge IME findings through their treating physicians’ testimony, through cross-examination of the IME physician’s methodology and financial conflicts, and through the presentation of objective diagnostic evidence that contradicts the IME conclusions. Effective rebuttal of an adverse IME report recovers a significant portion of the value that the report initially erodes.
Preparing for the IME Process
The IME examination is a consequential event in personal injury litigation that requires preparation. Understanding the examiner’s role, maintaining consistent and accurate reporting of symptoms, and working with legal counsel to contextualize the IME findings within the broader medical record are essential steps for preserving claim value throughout the IME process.
Comments