I got the following question Friday and wanted to share my response:
Do you have a strategy or analogy you use that is effective when the defense hires a doctor that only reviews records and does not examine the patient?
Medicine is a hands-on profession, especially orthopedic surgeons/ neurosurgeons. Dr. Bull is as hands-off as it gets. The only “hand” he had in anything was to be “hand-picked” by the defense as their favorite for-hire witness. Not only is he not Ms. Jones’ doctor, he’s never examined her, he’s never talked to her, he’s never even laid eyes on her.
All he has to go on is what Ms. Jones’ treating doctor wrote about the exams he conducted, the histories he took and the tests he conducted. Ask yourself, how come Dr. Bull is telling you the opposite of what the hands-on doctor diagnosed as to his patient’s injury? The answer lies in his role. The only reason he is saying anything about Ms. Jones is the defense doesn’t like what the hands-on, treating doctor concluded about his own patient. We can’t stop Dr. Bull from talking, but you can stop his words from bringing about an injustice. All you have to do is use your common sense.
What if there was an exam?
With a few adjustments, much of this still works even when the defense expert did conduct an examination of your client. When comparing the treating physician to defense expert, just change the labels from “hands-on” v “hands-off” to hands-on treater v hired-on talker.
Also, replace the first paragraph of my answer above with this: Good medicine requires continuity of care where the patient’s wellbeing is the goal. Dr. Bull’s involvement had nothing to do with Ms. Jones wellbeing, it had everything to do with what’s best for the defense. The only “continuity” is with how often he gets picked as the defense’s favorite for-hire witness.