Before your IME goes out, a physician with payer-side review experience checks it for the same seven defects that plaintiff attorneys will attack at deposition. Risk management before the report leaves your desk.
Conclusions not supported by the examining physician's own documented findings.
Material facts from the treating record that the IME does not acknowledge — each one a cross-examination question.
Where examination findings contradict stated conclusions.
Treating record entries that directly contradict IME positions — will plaintiff find them?
Examination duration, tests performed, and records reviewed consistent with conclusions?
Specific corrections and additions before the report is finalized and served.
The deposition questions a prepared plaintiff attorney would ask — addressed before they can be asked.
Your IME physician has produced a report and you need to ensure it will survive deposition before serving it.
You are commissioning an IME for a high-value case and want physician-level quality assurance on the work product.
A previous IME in a related case was attacked at deposition and you want to prevent a repeat.
Institutional invoice terms: Net 15 or Net 30. Operating expense — not case cost framing.
The IME Quality Review examines whether the report’s conclusions are adequately supported by the history, examination, records, and reasoning documented by the IME physician. It is quality control—not ghostwriting and not pressure to reach a preferred outcome.
An IME report can be clinically reasonable and still be vulnerable because it overlooks material contrary evidence, overstates certainty, uses boilerplate that does not fit the patient, or draws a broad functional conclusion from a narrow examination. Once served, those defects can affect deposition, credibility, and the retaining party’s position.
The review identifies what should be clarified, supported, narrowed, or expressly acknowledged before final submission. The IME physician retains independent judgment and decides whether any revision is clinically appropriate.
All material diagnosis, causation, treatment, prognosis, impairment, restriction, and return-to-work conclusions are identified.
The draft is compared with material records for omitted treatment, prior history, imaging, contrary findings, and changes over time.
The examination performed and records reviewed are compared with the breadth and certainty of the conclusions.
Ambiguous phrasing, template mismatch, unsupported certainty, internal contradiction, and unanswered alternative explanations are flagged.
Comments are framed as questions or quality issues for the author to address while preserving independent medical judgment.
The strongest review includes the draft report and the material record set the author relied upon. A report-only review can still identify internal and methodological issues.
The deliverable is concise and directed toward repairable report quality rather than a second full opinion.
No. The review identifies clinical support, completeness, reasoning, and wording issues. The IME physician decides whether and how to revise.
Yes, but once the report has been signed or served, the work functions more like vulnerability analysis than pre-submission quality control. The deliverable will distinguish issues that can still be clarified from those that are now fixed in the record.
Yes for internal consistency, scope, certainty, and template issues. Omission analysis is stronger with the underlying records.
Potentially, through a pilot and standardized protocol that preserves each physician’s independent judgment and appropriate disclosure.
No records required to start — describe the case and the IME status.