Getting Prior IME Reports

Posted on July 3, 2008 by Tim Titolo

An IME (or CME Compulsory Medical Exam, or DME Defense Medical Exam) is expert testimony. Therefore, it is subject to scientific trustworthiness and reliability. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Supreme Court Case Daubert and its progeny provide guidelines for courts in many jurisdictions.

However, Nevada is guided by principles of trustworthiness and reliability espoused in Santillanes v. State, 104 Nev. 699, 703-05, 765 P3d 1147 (1988).

Therefore, in this author’s opinion, whenever presented with an opinion from an adverse source the law should allow for the investigation and scrutiny of that opinion and its scientific or junk-science nature. Hence, prior IME (CME or DME) should be turned over to the other side. One side should be allowed to review another side’ propensities in prior reports/expert opinions. One need not know any personal information about the subject of the prior opinions and so there is no need to worry about divulging private information.

However, the knowledge regarding the adverse opinion in the current matter may well stem from adverse propensities, such as financial gain to the one with the adverse opinion, to mention but one.

Southern Nevada currently has a Discovery Commissioner who rules that prior “IME reports” are not discoverable based on her belief that even if the names are protected, information about injury is private to the unnamed individual.

I try to obtain “IME” reports from defense “experts” prior to deposing them to study their pattern of testimony. The Commissioner has yet to allow it and on appeal of her decision, the same issue will soon confront the Judges in the Eight Juridical District Court.

I will update this issue.

Tags: , , , , ,

Tort Reform Hoax

Posted on April 2, 2008 by Tim Titolo

A new study on tort reform by a business-backed institute "proves tort reform does not work," according to the association for the nation's justice lawyers.  The Insurance Journal contains the report.

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports on the Endocscopy Clinic debacle almost everyday since it went public.  Today LVRJ reports that insurance companies are no longer covering gastroentologists which is soon to result in a medical "crisis."  Sound familiar?  Does the "medical crisis" the insurance company financed in the media in 2003 being due to "frivolous lawsuits" and "outrageous jury verdicts" sound familiar? Well Cigna, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Sierra Health Services

Stay tuned to the Endocsopy crisis.  Eventually lawyers who are responding to the public damage unaccountable physicans wreaked on their patients will be blamed for an eventual "crisis" of physician availability.  But who today would deny the fact that thousands of people are suffering and possibly dying due to physician negligence?  The cause of the crisis will be insurance companies guarding the profits of their CEOs by distancing themselves from known risks and losses.  They will charge exhorbitant insurance malpractice rates to good physicians due to the egregious acts of the few physicians that are guilty as sin.

Lets wait and see if I am right.

Tags: , , ,