Call Now | (412) 981-2400
In Pennsylvania personal injury trials, medical evidence often becomes the battleground on which cases are won or lost. Central to that battle is the testimony of the defense’s medical expert, often an Independent Medical Examination (IME) doctor hired by the insurance company or defense counsel.
While these experts are presented as neutral evaluators, the reality is often quite different. Many IME doctors have financial and professional ties to insurance companies and provide testimony that tends to minimize injuries or question causation. If left unchallenged, this testimony can unfairly sway a jury and weaken a plaintiff’s case.
That’s why cross-examining defense medical experts effectively is essential. In this article, we’ll break down who IME doctors are, why their testimony matters, and, most importantly, how attorneys in Pennsylvania can successfully discredit and impeach their opinions in court.
An Independent Medical Examination (IME) is a tool used by the defense in personal injury litigation to obtain a second medical opinion on the extent of a plaintiff’s injuries. Despite the term “independent,” these evaluations are often anything but. In practice, they are usually conducted by doctors hired by the defense who may have a long history of testifying in favor of insurance companies.
These doctors typically perform a brief, one-time exam and review select portions of the plaintiff’s medical history. They then generate a report used to suggest that the plaintiff’s injuries are either minimal, unrelated to the incident in question, or completely resolved.
The defense will often use the IME report to:
Understanding this role is key for attorneys and plaintiffs alike. The IME doctor’s testimony may be the cornerstone of the defense’s medical argument, so knowing how to prepare for and challenge their conclusions is critical to achieving justice.
In any civil trial involving physical injuries, credibility is everything. Defense medical experts often appear confident, well-spoken, and seemingly objective. Without effective cross-examination, their opinions can appear unassailable to jurors unfamiliar with the subtle tactics used in expert testimony.
One of the most significant concerns is expert witness bias. IME doctors may earn substantial income through repeat work for insurance companies or law firms. This introduces a financial incentive to provide opinions favorable to the defense, even if those opinions are inconsistent or incomplete.
Some common tactics used by defense IME doctors include:
If not challenged, these tactics can mislead the jury and cause them to doubt the plaintiff’s injuries. A strong cross-examination shifts the focus back to the facts and can reestablish the plaintiff’s credibility.
Preparation is the backbone of any effective cross-examination. To challenge the IME’s findings, attorneys must know the report inside and out, as well as the broader medical record.
Start by obtaining the IME report early in the process. Review it thoroughly, noting any generalizations, missing context, or conclusions that conflict with the treating physician’s documentation.
Compare the IME findings with:
Inconsistencies or omissions in the IME doctor’s report are your leverage points.
Additionally, research the IME doctor’s background. How frequently do they perform these exams? Have they ever testified for plaintiffs? Have they been impeached in past cases? This background can be used to question their impartiality and credibility in court.
You should also prepare visual exhibits or demonstrative aids that can contrast treating physicians’ findings with those of the IME doctor. Clear, side-by-side comparisons are especially helpful for juries.
An effective cross-examination is not about arguing with the witness. Instead, it’s about methodically exposing flaws, biases, and inconsistencies in their testimony.
Start by attacking the foundation of the IME doctor’s conclusions. Did they perform a proper evaluation? Did they rely on objective data or assumptions?
Sample questions include:
Show the jury that the doctor is not a disinterested party.
Ask:
If the doctor has built a career on defense work, that fact should be presented clearly.
Treating doctors have a longer history with the plaintiff and provide care over time. This often gives them more credibility.
Use questions such as:
“Dr. Jones has treated the plaintiff for over a year. You saw them once for 15 minutes?”
These comparisons position the treating physician as more informed and invested.
To ensure a structured and thorough cross-examination, follow this process:
While every report should be reviewed on its merits, several red flags often indicate bias:
These signs suggest that the IME doctor’s conclusions may not be fully objective.
If the IME doctor’s testimony is especially damaging or contradictory, you may pursue impeachment.
Legal grounds include:
Presenting documentation, depositions, or even the doctor’s own previous publications can help dismantle their credibility in the eyes of the jury.
Here are several examples of effective cross-examination questions:
All questions should be focused, leading, and designed to limit the expert’s ability to deliver narrative responses that favor the defense.
Can I challenge the defense medical expert’s opinion in court?
Yes, you absolutely can challenge the opinion of a defense medical expert, including those who perform independent medical examinations (IMEs). In Pennsylvania personal injury trials, cross-examination provides the opportunity to question the expert’s qualifications, methodology, conclusions, and potential bias. If the IME doctor’s testimony contradicts the plaintiff’s medical history, treatment records, or the opinion of a treating physician, those discrepancies can be strategically used to weaken the credibility of the defense’s medical argument.
What happens if the IME doctor contradicts my treating physician?
When an IME doctor offers an opinion that contradicts the testimony or findings of your treating physician, the court and jury will be asked to evaluate which medical opinion is more reliable. This is a key moment where your attorney can emphasize the long-term treatment relationship your physician has had with you, compared to the short, one-time examination performed by the defense expert. The treating doctor’s intimate knowledge of your condition, combined with consistent progress notes and diagnostic imaging, often carries more weight with jurors when effectively presented during cross-examination.
Are IME doctors always biased toward the defense?
Not always, but it is common for IME doctors to have an ongoing professional relationship with insurance companies or defense law firms. Many of these doctors conduct IMEs as a significant part of their income and testify in dozens — sometimes hundreds — of defense cases. While that doesn’t automatically mean their testimony is unreliable, it introduces the possibility of bias, especially if the doctor’s opinions routinely favor the side paying them. This potential conflict should always be investigated and addressed during cross-examination.
What kind of questions can be asked during the cross-examination of an IME doctor?
Attorneys may ask a wide range of questions during cross-examination that focus on the doctor’s examination methods, the completeness of their record review, prior testimony history, financial compensation, and potential biases. Questions can also target discrepancies between the IME report and the plaintiff’s actual medical records. Effective questions are often short, direct, and structured to limit the doctor’s ability to explain away issues or offer new opinions during the trial. The goal is to reveal inconsistencies and undermine credibility in the eyes of the jury.
Can the defense expert be impeached or disqualified?
Under certain circumstances, yes. A defense medical expert can be impeached — meaning their credibility is called into question — if they’ve made inconsistent statements in prior testimony, failed to follow established medical protocols, or demonstrated clear bias through repeated defense-only work. While disqualification is rare and usually reserved for ethical or procedural violations, successful impeachment can significantly diminish the impact of their testimony on the jury’s decision. Your attorney may use depositions, prior cases, or even published articles by the doctor to achieve this.
In a Pennsylvania injury trial, the defense’s medical expert may attempt to reshape the narrative of your client’s injuries. But with preparation, precise questioning, and a clear strategy, you can neutralize their influence and protect your client’s credibility.
Cross-examination is your opportunity to shift the jury’s focus from the polished performance of a paid expert to the real, evidence-based story of your client’s injury and recovery.
If you or someone you know is facing an injury case involving a biased IME doctor, don’t go it alone. A qualified Pennsylvania personal injury attorney can help you understand your rights, prepare your case, and challenge flawed or misleading medical testimony.
Contact Matzus Law, LLC today to begin building a strong case and protecting your future.
Helping each and every one of our clients with tenacious representation when they need a strong and passionate advocate.
Maztus Law
Maztus Law