Attorney or paralegal review
Efficient for legal framing and obvious inconsistencies. It may not resolve whether the examination, cited record, and medical reasoning actually support each clinical conclusion.
Every unsupported assertion. Every omitted medical fact. Every internal contradiction. Twenty or more physician-authored deposition questions — built from the weaknesses in the report itself.
Plain-English summary of what the IME physician concluded and the reasoning structure used.
Every conclusion not supported by the examining physician’s own documented findings or the treating record.
Material facts present in the treating record that the IME report does not acknowledge.
Where the IME physician’s own examination findings contradict their conclusions.
Specific treating record entries that directly contradict IME positions, with page references.
Assessment of whether the contested treatment meets the documentation threshold typically applied by defense reviewers.
How the IME physician handled prior pathology — and whether that handling is clinically defensible.
Whether the examination duration, tests performed, and records reviewed are consistent with stated conclusions.
Targeted questions to strengthen the treating physician’s documentation before expert engagement.
Physician-authored questions for deposing the IME physician — each tied to a specific identified vulnerability.
You have received a defense IME and need to understand where it is vulnerable before your expert responds to it.
You are preparing to depose the IME physician and need questions built from the record — not generic deposition templates.
The IME report uses payer-review language to justify a “no causal relationship” conclusion and you need a physician to identify where that language is unsupported.
You are approaching mediation and need to understand the defense medical position before you walk into the room.
Firms may treat the fee as a case cost, subject to their engagement agreement, applicable law, and case outcome. Bundle with the Defense Medical Lens™ from $900 →
The useful question is not whether the IME sounds persuasive. It is whether each material conclusion is supported by the history obtained, the examination performed, the records reviewed, and a clinically coherent explanation of competing evidence.
An IME can compress hundreds of pages into a confident narrative. That compression is often where the dispute lives: a prior condition may be treated as dispositive without a baseline comparison, a normal finding may be given more weight than an abnormal longitudinal pattern, or a broad functional conclusion may rest on a limited examination. The review therefore begins by separating the report into individual opinions rather than treating it as one indivisible document.
For each opinion, Medisprudence traces the stated basis back to the cited record, identifies material evidence that was not addressed, and evaluates whether the reasoning accounts for alternative explanations. The result is designed to help counsel decide what requires treating-physician clarification, what should be addressed by a retained expert, and what can be tested directly in deposition.
Every causation, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, impairment, and functional opinion is isolated so that support and omissions can be assessed separately.
Material factual statements are checked against the records supplied, including dates, imaging reports, examination findings, prior history, treatment response, and provider recommendations.
The physical examination, testing performed, duration and scope of the encounter, and stated limitations are compared with the breadth and certainty of the conclusions.
Pre-existing disease, intervening events, symptom variability, treatment gaps, and alternative causes are evaluated to determine whether they were reasonably addressed or merely asserted.
Findings are ranked by strategic importance and converted into record-specific questions for treating physicians, retained experts, and deposition preparation.
The IME report is the minimum required document. A deeper record-based analysis becomes possible when counsel also provides the material the examiner claims to have reviewed.
The deliverable is not a generic rebuttal letter. It is a structured working document that distinguishes a factual discrepancy from a clinical inference problem and a methodology concern.
Yes. A report-only review can identify internal contradictions, unsupported leaps, scope problems, and questions raised by the examiner’s own language. Record-based counterpoints will be limited to the materials supplied.
It provides clinically grounded questions and the medical reason each question matters. Deposition sequencing, evidentiary use, and legal strategy remain with counsel.
Yes, but a substantial new record set may require a supplemental scope because the source-verification work changes materially.
Rush timing can be quoted after the report length, record volume, specialty, and deadline are known. The standard public turnaround assumes a controlled record set.
10 sections demonstrated with fictional clinical data. Orthopedic spine case. Real methodology, no PHI.
The same seven-defect framework, applied before your IME goes out. Risk management before cross-examination.
No records required to start — send only general case facts first.