Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Specialist doctors acting for defendants in personal injury claim.

  • 30-09-2018 11:09am
    #1
    easygoingguy30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 ✭


    When these specialists are hired by the insurance company,is there real aim to make very little of any injuries you have,Even though your medical history/specialists reports of your own says different?


Comments

  • #2
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    easygoingguy30 wrote: »
    When these specialists are hired by the insurance company,is there real aim to make very little of any injuries you have,Even though your medical history/specialists reports of your own says different?

    He who pays the piper, calls the tune.


  • #3
    VonZan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 320 ✭✭VonZan


    easygoingguy30 wrote: »
    When these specialists are hired by the insurance company,is there real aim to make very little of any injuries you have,Even though your medical history/specialists reports of your own says different?

    Well yes, they're hired to defend the insurance company's case. Usually if it goes to trial the insurance company thinks they have a decent chance of defending the case.

    Just because a medical report says something doesn't necessarily mean that report is correct or accurate. Also, insurance companies are becoming much better at defending claims with medical exports and private investigators these days.

    Anyone making a genuine claim shouldn't be worried about their medical reports standing up in court.


  • #4
    easygoingguy30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 ✭easygoingguy30


    Yes I agree when there is a genuine claim,there is nothing to worry about,it’s just when the defendants doctor try and make little if you ...


  • #5
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    easygoingguy30 wrote: »
    When these specialists are hired by the insurance company,is there real aim to make very little of any injuries you have,Even though your medical history/specialists reports of your own says different?

    The primary purpose of engaging such people is to provide an independent medical evaluation of the plaintiff's medical complaints relative to the accident.

    The perception that they are all "hired guns" often falls flat. A doctor providing a medico-legal report to a defendant will do so on the basis that they will also have to give evidence in court of what is in their report. Therefore, they are open to challenge on cross-examination and would need to report with that in mind.

    In a another context, I have encountered a tiny number of individuals who might be seen as hired guns within a certain narrow set of cases relating to a particular medical condition. They are engaged because they have a view of a particular medical condition and tend to be somewhat unsympathetic towards claimants. Judges get to know who they are and are free to accept or reject, in total or in part, the evidence of the defence experts or to prefer the evidence of the plaintiff's medical witnesses.


  • #6
    easygoingguy30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 ✭easygoingguy30


    That makes sense about the so called “hired guns”.
    The defendants doctor may try and make little of the injuries,but do they not have to make a report based on medical note/history/reports and not just the 30min assessment?
    I have heard about a joint report,does anyone have info on it?
    Thanks


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    easygoingguy30 wrote: »
    That makes sense about the so called “hired guns”.
    The defendants doctor may try and make little of the injuries,but do they not have to make a report based on medical note/history/reports and not just the 30min assessment?
    I have heard about a joint report,does anyone have info on it?
    Thanks

    In the conventional medico-legal report scenario the defendant's doctor examines the patient. It would be quite in order for them to consult with the plaintiff's doctors about the history.

    The report produced will be that of the defendant's doctor and that will be his evidence. The fact that the defendant's doctor has consulted with the plaintiff's doctor does not make it a joint report.

    There was a time - long ago and far away - when a defendant's doctor might actually examine the plaintiff in the presence of the plaintiff's own doctor. Even that would not be a joint report but rather that of the defendant's doctor only.

    It is possible when each side has received their respective medical reports that the medical evidence can be agreed if there is no basis for disagreement. In that event medical reports can be handed in to the judge on the basis that the medical evidence is agreed. This dispenses with unnecessary witnesses.


Advertisement