Attorney-only report review
Strong for admissibility, disclosure, and litigation strategy. A physician review adds clinical testing of the factual foundation, method, certainty, and fit between the cited evidence and each opinion.
The exact mirror of IME Deconstruction — for defense teams. When a plaintiff discloses a medical expert, this delivers the same analytical deconstruction: unsupported assertions, omitted contrary evidence, selective guideline citation, and deposition questions calibrated to the report's specific weaknesses.
Plain-English summary of the plaintiff expert's opinions and reasoning structure.
Conclusions not supported by the cited medical evidence or treating record.
Material findings in the record that contradict the expert's opinions — not addressed in the report.
Where the expert's own cited evidence contradicts stated conclusions.
Guidelines cited out of context, partially quoted, or applied to non-matching clinical scenarios.
Where confidence levels exceed what the evidence supports — "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" without adequate basis.
Whether the analytical approach is clinically coherent, consistently applied, and adequately supported for counsel and the retained expert to evaluate.
Specific medical support and methodology concerns for counsel and the responsive expert to assess.
Physician-authored deposition questions calibrated to the report's specific weaknesses.
Key points for your defense expert to address in their responsive report.
Institutional invoice terms: Net 15 or Net 30.
A qualified expert may still offer opinions that exceed the record, omit material contrary evidence, use an analytical method inconsistently, or state more certainty than the underlying data support. This service maps those issues for defense counsel before deposition, responsive expert engagement, or motion practice.
The review does not begin by assuming the expert is wrong. It breaks the report into discrete opinions, identifies the evidence and method offered for each, and tests whether the reasoning remains coherent when contrary facts and plausible alternatives are included.
The result helps counsel distinguish issues that can be explored directly in deposition from matters that require a responsive specialist. It also prevents expensive expert time from being spent on basic orientation and issue spotting.
Causation, standard, prognosis, future care, impairment, damages-related medical assumptions, and other material opinions are listed separately.
Cited facts are verified and material omitted records, prior history, alternative causes, and contradictory findings are identified.
The report’s stated analytical method, differential reasoning, guideline or literature use, and application to the claimant are examined for consistency.
The certainty of each conclusion is compared with the quality, completeness, and ambiguity of the supporting record.
Findings are converted into deposition questions and issues requiring review by a jurisdiction-qualified responsive expert.
A report-only review can identify internal defects. A record-supported analysis requires the exhibits, literature, and clinical file on which the expert purports to rely.
The analysis separates medical reliability concerns from legal conclusions so counsel can decide how each issue should be used.
Yes, but multiple reports, specialties, or a broad literature record require a larger scope than a short single-issue report.
Yes, where the report and supplied record provide a sufficient factual and clinical basis. Questions are tied to the expert’s actual language, cited sources, method, and degree of certainty; counsel controls legal sequencing and use.
Yes, at counsel’s direction. It is designed to reduce orientation time and identify issues the retained expert must independently evaluate.
No. The review examines whether the guideline is applicable, accurately characterized, consistently used, and reconciled with the individual record.