We are pleased to announce our recent court success, in which we defended our client’s interests by preventing a medical assessment (IME) by a neurologist chosen by the insurance company.
IMEs are often obtained by both the claimant and the insurance company during the litigation process, the purpose of which is to have independent doctors provide the parties, and ultimately the Court, with an impartial expert opinion on the claimant’s injuries. The law typically requires the Plaintiff to attend these appointments so long as they are reasonable and fair, subject to exceptions.
Over the course of the claim, our client consented to two IMEs selected by the insurance company; one with a psychiatrist and one with an orthopaedic surgeon. Interestingly, we had yet to receive copies of the reports from the first two assessments, yet the insurer asked for yet another one, this time with a neurologist. When we drew the line at two assessments, the insurer applied for a court order to compel our client to attend.
We argued that the third IME was unnecessary and would put the parties on an unequal playing field. We further argued that the insurer had yet to produce reports from their two previous IMEs, and was in essence ‘doctor shopping’ for a favorable opinion.
The Court agreed with our submissions and dismissed the insurer’s application with costs.Tweet