In injury cases, the insurance company defending the case generally has the ability to obtain a medical exam from a doctor that it selects. These are often labeled “independent medical exams.” Here, the New York Times does an admirable job of highlighting problems with insurance medical exams.  One of the doctors interviewed by the Times reporter makes clear that he intentionally falsifies medical exam reports in order to  get exam business.

The key to the unraveling of the exam reviewed in the Times was a video of the examination. It did not match the doctor’s report.

Video should be a no-brainer, right? Interestingly, some judges allow videotaping of exams and some refuse it. Lawyers for the patient generally argue that a video record provides the best means of independently checking on what happened in the exam room.  This article provides a concrete example of why video is essential.

Juries are inclined to believe people whose first names are “Doctor” when the doctor is explaining what he or she found on examination. For that reason, it’s especially important to be able to discredit a doctor who is nothing more than an insurance company hired gun.

Back in Oregon, the insurance medical exam problem is a mixed bag. To be sure, there are doctors who are honest and straight and are not afraid to say when a patient is truly injured. But Oregon has its own share of doctors who are beholden to the insurance companies whose opinions consistently come out against the injured patient.

David Sugerman

Thanks to Jen for sending this powerful piece explaining the need for seat belts. It’s probably the best I’ve seen or heard.

Jen posted it as a comment on an old post, so I wanted to add it here for those who only look at our current entries. Kudos as well to the Montana Department of Transportation for an excellent video. And to Jeremy’sfamily: maybe your horrible tragedy takes on some meaning if this gets wide distribution. Our thoughts are with you on this.

So here’s our small part from Oregon.

David Sugerman